❓ Dr. Woollard questions the Attorney General's advice against compensating Mr. Cannon following an Ombudsman's recommendation regarding a stolen car. The Attorney General defends the decision based on legal advice that no negligence occurred.
AnsweredQoN 796Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Will the Attorney General explain to the House why he advised the Minister for Police last year not to comply with a recommendation from the Ombudsman that one of my constituents, Mr John Cannon, be paid compensation by the Commissioner of Police for the financial loss he suffered because he was unknowingly involved in the sale of a stolen car? (2) By refusing to comply with the recommendation, is the Attorney General undermining the role of the Ombudsman and turning the State’s senior complaints adjudicator into a toothless tiger? (3) Will the Government introduce legislation to provide avenues for appeal when departments refuse to act on recommendations handed down by the Ombudsman? (4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(2) By refusing to comply with the recommendation, is the Attorney General undermining the role of the Ombudsman and turning the State’s senior complaints adjudicator into a toothless tiger? (3) Will the Government introduce legislation to provide avenues for appeal when departments refuse to act on recommendations handed down by the Ombudsman? (4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(3) Will the Government introduce legislation to provide avenues for appeal when departments refuse to act on recommendations handed down by the Ombudsman? (4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(2) By refusing to comply with the recommendation, is the Attorney General undermining the role of the Ombudsman and turning the State’s senior complaints adjudicator into a toothless tiger? (3) Will the Government introduce legislation to provide avenues for appeal when departments refuse to act on recommendations handed down by the Ombudsman? (4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(3) Will the Government introduce legislation to provide avenues for appeal when departments refuse to act on recommendations handed down by the Ombudsman? (4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(4) As the Ombudsman found that there was a moral obligation to compensate Mr Cannon, will the Government consider an ex gratia payment or some other form of recompense? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
(1)-(4) I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The circumstances that she refers to occurred back in 1991-92 when a stolen Mazda MX5 was registered in Western Australia and sold for $29 000. Some years later, in September 1996, the car was identified as stolen and seized by the police. The person who suffered the loss complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that the Police Service, as the licensing authority in 1992, failed to have in place a system - either in terms of legislation or administrative procedures - for licensing that catered reasonably for the known problem of interstate movement of stolen and financially encumbered vehicles. He also complained that the Police Service, as the investigating authority, failed to sufficiently investigate known concerns about Lord Street Motors from as early as mid 1993. Accordingly, the Ombudsman recommended that compensation be paid to the person who suffered the loss because, essentially, the Police Service did not have in place a system sufficient to deal with the registration of stolen vehicles. The police then sought advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office and me because, as members will be aware, the legal position is: first, it must be the duty of the police, as the licensing authority, to investigate prior ownership of the Mazda; secondly, that duty must have been negligently discharged; and, thirdly, that loss must have been caused by that negligence. The Crown Solicitor’s Office advised me on two matters: first, that Mr Cannon does not have a cause of action against the State for negligence at common law or for a breach of statutory duty or otherwise; and, secondly, that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is entitled to take the view that no compensation should be offered to Mr Cannon, notwithstanding the Ombudsman’s recommendation to that effect. I advised the minister accordingly last year.
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.