❓ Question regarding police guidelines for questioning suspects and the decision not to charge Mr. John Quigley for threats against an undercover officer. The Minister tables the requested document and explains the investigation's handling by various bodies.
AnsweredQoN 1215Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MEMBER FOR MINDARIE - CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION MALLARD CASE EVIDENCE
I refer the minister to the answer to question without notice 1127. (1) Will the minister table a complete version of the police guidelines for questioning suspects, document OP-30, that was requested on 22 November 2007? (2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD
I refer the minister to the answer to question without notice 1127. (1) Will the minister table a complete version of the police guidelines for questioning suspects, document OP-30, that was requested on 22 November 2007? (2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(1) Will the minister table a complete version of the police guidelines for questioning suspects, document OP-30, that was requested on 22 November 2007? (2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
[See paper 3563.]
(1) Will the minister table a complete version of the police guidelines for questioning suspects, document OP-30, that was requested on 22 November 2007? (2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(2) If not, will the minister explain his reluctance to provide the document? (3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(3) Did the police consider laying charges under various breaches of the Criminal Code over the threats made to the undercover officer by Mr John Quigley? (4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(4) If so, why did the police not lay charges independently of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Corruption and Crime Commission? (5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(5) Did the police dispute the DPP’s decision to not charge Mr Quigley over his threatening behaviour towards the undercover officer; and, if not, why not? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(1) Yes, and I now table the document. (2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(2) Not applicable. (3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(3) No, the investigation was the subject of consideration by the Western Australia Police; the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers, headed by His Honour Mr Kennedy, QC; and the then Anti-Corruption Commission. Following advice from the Kennedy royal commission that the matter would not be investigated at the royal commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission determined that the matter would be investigated by the ACC alone as the responsible authority investigating allegations of misconduct or corrupt conduct by police officers. The matter was then later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission as the new authority investigating misconduct and corruption matters of public officers. (4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(4) The police did not lay charges independently of the DPP or the CCC as the police were aware of the CCC taking the lead role in this investigation. Furthermore, the police were made aware by the CCC that the alleged conduct of Mr Quigley was the subject of investigation by the Acting Corruption and Crime Commissioner, Mr John Dunford, QC. (5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
(5) The DPP’s decision not to charge Mr Quigley was never communicated to the Western Australia Police, as it was a matter being dealt with directly between the CCC and the DPP. [See paper 3563.]
[See paper 3563.]
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.