❓ Question regarding the Mickelberg case and the involvement of the then Detective Sergeant Kucera (now Minister for Health) and whether new evidence will be referred to the police royal commission. The Attorney General confirms awareness of the evidence and defends Kucera's testimony.
AnsweredQoN 1060Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the 1998 Court of Criminal Appeal case of Raymond and Peter Mickelberg and the Queen. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the fresh evidence in this appeal given by the now Minister for Health, on behalf of the Crown, was that he entered the room in which Mickelberg was being interviewed and allegedly beaten, but it looked like a normal interview? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that Peter Mickelberg claims that he complained to the then Detective Sergeant Kucera about being hit, but the minister denied that? (3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the fresh evidence in this appeal given by the now Minister for Health, on behalf of the Crown, was that he entered the room in which Mickelberg was being interviewed and allegedly beaten, but it looked like a normal interview? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that Peter Mickelberg claims that he complained to the then Detective Sergeant Kucera about being hit, but the minister denied that? (3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(2) Is the Attorney General also aware that Peter Mickelberg claims that he complained to the then Detective Sergeant Kucera about being hit, but the minister denied that? (3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the fresh evidence in this appeal given by the now Minister for Health, on behalf of the Crown, was that he entered the room in which Mickelberg was being interviewed and allegedly beaten, but it looked like a normal interview? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that Peter Mickelberg claims that he complained to the then Detective Sergeant Kucera about being hit, but the minister denied that? (3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(2) Is the Attorney General also aware that Peter Mickelberg claims that he complained to the then Detective Sergeant Kucera about being hit, but the minister denied that? (3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(3) In the light of revelations in Anthony Lewandowski’s affidavit, will this evidence and the now Minister for Health’s involvement be referred to the police royal commission? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
(1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the nature of the evidence given by Detective Sergeant Kucera, as he was in 1982 when the interview took place in the Belmont Criminal Investigation Bureau headquarters, to the Court of Criminal Appeal some 16 years later in 1998. I am aware that he said that he went into the room on two occasions. Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: Three. Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: I think it was two; I suggest the member read it closely. He said that he went in to collect some papers on one occasion. The impression I get from the evidence is that he was there for a very short period. He then went back later and delivered some hamburgers and coffee into the room. Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: What did he see? Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: The member should let me answer the question. I heard her question the first time, and I am doing my best to answer it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: This matter warrants greater seriousness on the part of the member than she is currently offering it. The evidence that was given about who was not involved in the interview - Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Ms Sue Walker: What did he say he saw? The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The SPEAKER: Members, this is a very important question and it demands silence so that the Attorney General can answer it. I am sure the member for Nedlands wants the facts to be presented as plainly as possible. I urge members not to interject. The question involves a member of this House, and he and other members of this House deserve to have the question answered in silence. Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
Mr McGINTY: The interview took place from late morning until midafternoon for approximately four hours. I thought that the evidence said that on two occasions, Mr Kucera went into that area - once to collect papers and once to deliver lunch, which was, as I recollect, hamburgers from Hungry Jack’s across the road and coffees for both Mr Mickelberg and the two police officers who were conducting the investigation - and that he was not at the police station for the bulk of that time. Mr Kucera testified that in the brief time he was there it appeared to him to be a normal interview and that on the second occasion he was there something was being read by Mr Lewandowski to Mr Mickelberg. That was the nature of the evidence he gave to the court from his brief entry into an interview in which he was not involved. That evidence is on the public record and was believed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. Nobody has questioned whether that evidence should or should not be believed. The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
The third point was that Mr Mickelberg complained to Mr Kucera after the interview that he had been hit. It is common ground with everyone who gave evidence that Mr Kucera then sat with Mr Mickelberg. Mr Mickelberg said that he had complained but Mr Kucera said that he did not recollect his complaining, or not complaining. Nothing that Mr Lewandowski has said has cast any doubt on the accuracy of that recollection of events. Nobody has questioned anything that Mr Kucera did as a person who briefly entered the room on two occasions but who was not following the nature of the investigation taking place. Mr Kucera gave that evidence under oath; I believe him.
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.