❓ A parliamentary question addresses the Attorney General regarding the dropping of charges against Dante Arthurs in 2003 and resource allocation to the DPP. The Attorney General defends the DPP's independence and decision-making, citing issues with police interview admissibility and increased funding since 2005.
AnsweredQoN 508Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DANTE WYNDHAM ARTHURS
I refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to drop charges in 2003 relating to another alleged attack by Dante Arthurs on another young child, and the Attorney General’s failure to give a proper explanation for the decision. (1) Why are the Attorney General and the DPP continually evading questions asked in this house and using stalling techniques, such as a new investigation in relation to this matter? (2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to drop charges in 2003 relating to another alleged attack by Dante Arthurs on another young child, and the Attorney General’s failure to give a proper explanation for the decision. (1) Why are the Attorney General and the DPP continually evading questions asked in this house and using stalling techniques, such as a new investigation in relation to this matter? (2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(1) Why are the Attorney General and the DPP continually evading questions asked in this house and using stalling techniques, such as a new investigation in relation to this matter? (2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(1) Why are the Attorney General and the DPP continually evading questions asked in this house and using stalling techniques, such as a new investigation in relation to this matter? (2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(2) Why is it that yesterday the Attorney General said the DPP had advised that it was “wholly inappropriate to publicly discuss aspects of the inquiry” and yet, the DPP proceeded to speak to the media later in the day in relation to these very issues? (3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(3) Has the Attorney General considered that these charges were dropped because he continually failed in 2003 to provide the DPP with the resources it required, which at that point were critically low? (4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(4) Has the Attorney General ascertained, or is he concerned, that the DPP is now resurrecting these charges, when it could not proceed in 2003? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
(1)-(4) Firstly, in respect of the resources provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: in 2005, there was a massive increase in the budget for the DPP. His total budget was then - as best as I can recollect - $16 million; this year it rose to $26 million. That is an 84 per cent increase in the budget of that agency in the past two years. That gives members some idea of the massive injection of funds into that particular office. The DPP was reported as making some comments in the press recently about that. However, there is no doubt, to my way of thinking today, and the DPP has confirmed to me, that there are no current outstanding applications for funding from his office. I think that needs to be said for the public record. Going back to the charging of - and then the dropping of the charges against - Dante Arthurs in 2003 and 2004, the DPP as an independent office bearer of - Ms S.E. Walker : Come on! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Well, he is; the DPP is an independent office bearer. Twenty years ago, it was decided to separate that office from the then Crown Law Department to ensure complete independence in the office of the DPP and the requirement that the DPP conduct his business in the light of the prosecution guidelines, which he publishes. The DPP came to the conclusion in 2003, and I make no comment on this, that the interview that was conducted by the police was such that it would not be admissible in court and that there was not sufficient other evidence to justify continuing with the prosecution. That is why we pay the DPP to do the job that he does, to exercise his professional judgement in accordance with the prosecution guidelines, which he has promulgated. I understand that the police differ with that assessment. That is their right. Nonetheless, the call was made by the prosecuting authority that that video interview of evidence would not be admissible in a court. A similar problem arose recently, in respect again of Dante Arthurs, and not only did the DPP then take the matter to court, but the court determined that that particular interview was not admissible. The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
The DPP made a decision in 2004 about the 2003 charge. A few weeks ago the court made a similar determination. It is obviously clear that police must conduct these interviews in such a way that the information they get from them is admissible in court. The only reason that video interviews are conducted is to obtain evidence to present to the court with a view to convicting people of the offences with which they have been charged. They serve no purpose if police conduct them in a way that renders them inadmissible. That point was made amply by the DPP, Robert Cock, QC, and the Commissioner of Police on ABC radio last night. When the two were interviewed they expressed marginally different opinions on that matter. The one thing that they had in common was their belief that we must learn from our mistakes.
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.