❓ Question on Notice regarding prisoners with mental impairment under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996, including statistics on Indigenous prisoners and access to Prisoners Review Board reports. The Attorney General provides some information and commits to further consideration.
AnsweredQoN 213Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PRISONERS — MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
I refer to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996. (1) How many prisoners in Western Australia are currently being held in custody after findings of not guilty due to insanity, and how many of those are Indigenous? (2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996. (1) How many prisoners in Western Australia are currently being held in custody after findings of not guilty due to insanity, and how many of those are Indigenous? (2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(1) How many prisoners in Western Australia are currently being held in custody after findings of not guilty due to insanity, and how many of those are Indigenous? (2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(1) How many prisoners in Western Australia are currently being held in custody after findings of not guilty due to insanity, and how many of those are Indigenous? (2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(2) How many prisoners in Western Australia are being held without trial pursuant to the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, and how many of those are Indigenous? (3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(3) Given the obvious failure of the system in respect to Mr Marlon Noble, who was held in prison for 10 years without trial or conviction, will the Attorney General, as a gesture of transparency, immediately make available to me the annual reports prepared by the Prisoners Review Board for each of the two classes of prisoners, minus their names? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
(1)–(3) I will have to have a think about that last request, because of course, simply redacting the prisoners’ names will still enable the reader to know exactly who those reports are referring to in each instance. But, I will give the member for Mindarie’s request some thought. Traditionally it has never been the case that those reports are given over by the executive to anyone outside of the executive. Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : There is no transparency or accountability. Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : But that is the system. Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Is that not the point? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I said, I will give that request some thought and also look at the historical precedents that exist. The member’s question is in effect that under the — Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : How about making a decision, rather than just relying on precedent. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Unlike the Leader of the Opposition’s good self, I will not make a decision about a matter of extreme importance standing on my feet after having had the question put to me for the first time. Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No, don’t rely on precedent; take a decision, given that it’s a new circumstance. Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Precedent in these matters is not without importance. Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Well it is not. There are reasons under the act for things being done in a certain way under the former Labor government and our government. The fundamental point about the member’s question is that in this jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, there are two categories of prisoner: those who might be found insane at a trial and those who are found unfit to stand trial. The member has asked me how many prisoners fall into each category. With some prior notice, I could have given a precise answer. I can say that I have commenced an internal audit of all of prisoners who have been declared unfit to stand trial and who are presently incarcerated pursuant to such an order. I recall off the top of my head that there are about 17 or so such prisoners, but I could be wrong about the precise number. I do not have in my head, even in general terms, the number of prisoners presently detained because they were found to be insane after a trial, but I can find that out for the member. My primary concern in conducting an internal audit has been to identify all those individuals who are presently held because a court made a determination that they were unfit to stand trial. That audit is underway internally and I will give the numbers for both those categories of prisoners in due course. I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
I make a general point about the Marlon Noble matter. To an extent, the case has been reported and discussed in a way that has flowed from a presumption or inference that it is an obvious injustice and that it is just so staggeringly unfair for somebody to be incarcerated without—the expression is used often—ever having faced trial. The fact is that the relevant act has similar counterparts in every state and territory of Australia. The previous government operated under it, as does the present government. In effect, it provides that if an accused is charged with a crime and the judge looks at the facts before him and considers that there is a high prospect or reasonable likelihood that the accused did what he was accused of doing, but that the accused’s mental state is such that he is unable to go through a trial because he would not be able to understand the trial or give instructions to his counsel, the accused will not go through the trial process. Nevertheless, a determination has to be made as to what will happen to the accused in such circumstances. The fact is that it is not an inhumane system; it is a fair system, and it is the system that operates in every state and territory of Australia. Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Except if you wanted to plead not guilty. Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, member for Mindarie, all those arguments were advanced in open court, and the submission was that Mr Noble was mentally unfit to stand trial at that time. That was the determination that the judge made. Let us just pause for a moment and consider the offences of which Mr Noble was accused. The judge, having considered the fitness to stand trial submission, must have determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr Noble had committed them, and they were very, very serious offences. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Without those witnesses ever being cross-examined. Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : They occurred in respect of two young girls at a swimming pool complex in Carnarvon. Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Without the evidence ever being tested! It is shocking to put this out about him now, without this ever having been tested! It has never been tested, and in fact you know that the victims are now saying that it was the other uncle! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am putting to the member for Mindarie that a judge of the District Court of this state must have made a determination, as he had to pursuant to the act, that there was a strong likelihood that Mr Noble did what he was accused of doing. Would the member for Mindarie agree that that is what the judge determined in this matter? Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Yes, on what was put before him, the same as the judge found that Andrew Mallard was a murderer on what was put before him! They’ve got to put the right stuff before the judge! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
The SPEAKER : I am going to presume that the Attorney General has finished his comments at this point. I will give the member for Mindarie the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, or else I will move on with question time.
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.