Hon. Derrick Tomlinson questions the Attorney General about potential action against police officers named in the Mickelberg case, given concerns about their credibility raised by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Attorney General defers to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but Tomlinson indicates the DPP requires ministerial direction, specifically from the Attorney General, leading to a procedural impasse.

AnsweredQoN 597Legislative Council
Asked
18 August 2004
Portfolio
minister representing the Attorney General

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Mickelberg v Queen [2004] WASCA 145, files CCA 136 of 2004 and CCA 137 of 2004. In the light of opinions expressed in the above judgment by Mr Justice Steytler, and concurred with by Chief Justice Malcolm, about the credibility of police evidence in the trials and subsequent appeals of Raymond and Peter Mickelberg, what action has the Attorney General taken, or will the Attorney General take, to ensure that the following former or currently serving police officers are brought before juries on charges relevant to their apparently fabricated evidence - William Round; John Gillespie; Andrew Tovey; James Allen; Ljiliana Cvijic; Henry Hooft; Frank Bower; Kenneth Henning; Robert Kucera? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Whether any changes will flow from the findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Shall I read it and put it on the record? He will not pursue it without direction from other authority - that is, one of the ministers. Which one? The Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Whether any changes will flow from the findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Shall I read it and put it on the record? He will not pursue it without direction from other authority - that is, one of the ministers. Which one? The Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - Whether any changes will flow from the findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Shall I read it and put it on the record? He will not pursue it without direction from other authority - that is, one of the ministers. Which one? The Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.
Whether any changes will flow from the findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Shall I read it and put it on the record? He will not pursue it without direction from other authority - that is, one of the ministers. Which one? The Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.
Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Shall I read it and put it on the record? He will not pursue it without direction from other authority - that is, one of the ministers. Which one? The Attorney General. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We seem to have entered a debating period.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more