❓ Mr. Buswell questions the Attorney General's contact with the DPP regarding contempt proceedings against 'The West Australian'. The AG defends his actions, citing public interest and a judge's recommendation, while acknowledging the Court of Appeal's later ruling.
AnsweredQoN 572Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ATTORNEY GENERAL - CONTACT WITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
I refer to the Attorney General’s comments in Parliament on 20 September this year - . . . the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP . . . Notwithstanding his powers under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act - (1) Why did the Attorney General call the Director of Public Prosecutions at home, after hours, to try to influence criminal contempt proceedings against the editor of The West Australian and what exactly was said in this conversation? (2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the Attorney General’s comments in Parliament on 20 September this year - . . . the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP . . . Notwithstanding his powers under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act - (1) Why did the Attorney General call the Director of Public Prosecutions at home, after hours, to try to influence criminal contempt proceedings against the editor of The West Australian and what exactly was said in this conversation? (2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(1) Why did the Attorney General call the Director of Public Prosecutions at home, after hours, to try to influence criminal contempt proceedings against the editor of The West Australian and what exactly was said in this conversation? (2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(1) Why did the Attorney General call the Director of Public Prosecutions at home, after hours, to try to influence criminal contempt proceedings against the editor of The West Australian and what exactly was said in this conversation? (2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(2) Is it the position of his government that, as Attorney General, he should be able to contact the DPP and seek to influence his decision-making regarding a matter in which the Attorney General has a conflict of interest; namely, his dispute with The West Australian ? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
(1)-(2) Members might recall that late last year three trials were aborted in a period of two months, one at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General to take a seat. I call the member for Nedlands to order for the third and final time. Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : One of the trials was aborted at the instigation of the member for Nedlands. Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : Hey, I asked the question! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes. That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
That is the context for the events that then transpired. Judge Healy, a very experienced District Court judge, aborted the third trial as a result of a letter that was published in The West Australian . He described the publication in The West as “unbelievable and destructive”. To quote Judge Healy at the time - . . . to publish a letter in the Letters column of the only newspaper available to most people in Western Australia on a day when all the evidence has been completed and addresses are to commence seems to me to be an incredibly bad system of being able to edit a newspaper. He went on to say - . . . the director of public prosecutions should seriously consider taking proceedings against The West Australian for the publication of this letter. It seems to me to be a gross contempt of court. That was the reason Judge Healy aborted the third trial in a two-month period at enormous cost both to the justice system and to the dollars invested in the system, as well as inconveniencing witnesses and others involved in that trial. I rang Robert Cock, as I do from time to time, on his mobile phone and asked him whether he was proposing to do anything about the report that had appeared in the media on that issue. We discussed whether action should be taken. Robert Cock advised me that he would be initiating contempt of court proceedings against The West Australian and its editor. To suggest that there was any pressure is totally wrong and inappropriate. As I do from time to time on matters of major public interest, I will discuss these matters with the DPP. On that occasion we discussed whether action should be taken; and, if so, who should take it. Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : What happened with that action? Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware of the decision last week, I think it was, when three Court of Appeal judges ruled that Judge Healy was wrong in aborting that trial. That is a matter of public record. It was on 16 December last year that I spoke with the Director of Public Prosecutions when he advised me that he would be initiating action against the editor of The West Australian in response to the call that was made by Judge Healy. Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : What did you say to him in the conversation? Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I have already described to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what I said. We discussed whether action should be taken; if so, who should take it; and those sorts of matters. I supported the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting The West Australian and its editor. Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : Was Judge Healy wrong? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Yes, quite clearly. Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell : So why did you use his arguments earlier to substantiate your position? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy aborted the trial at enormous cost to taxpayers. Judge Healy recommended to the DPP - Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Judge Healy recommended to the DPP that he consider initiating contempt action. The DPP agreed with that request from Judge Healy. He initiated the action. One of the good things to come out of this is, I believe, that we now have greater certainty in the law and that this will result in fewer trials being aborted, which will be to the benefit of everyone.
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.