❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions' handling of white-collar crime, court delays, and trial discontinuances, particularly in Kalgoorlie.
AnsweredQoN 455Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I refer to the ‘Overview: The Year in Brief” on page 5 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s Annual Report 2003-2004, and ask, will the Attorney General advise which ‘white collar’ matters had to be briefed out?
(2) Will the Attorney General advise why such matters were considered necessary to be briefed out because of ‘considerable complexities’?
(3) Will the Attorney General advise which issues, identified in the Kalgoorlie Court circuit, led to the criteria for which the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions conducted such trials being reviewed?
(4) What are the new procedures which are being adopted in Kalgoorlie?
(5) What was the length of time a person had to wait in each of the Supreme and District Courts for a fast-track plea and sentence or a trial for the financial years -
(a) 2001-2002;
(b) 2002-2003;
(c) 2003-2004; and
(d) 2004-2005?
(6) What is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s acceptable timeframe for processing cases and what steps is the Attorney General taking to move the backlog?
(7) I refer to page 11 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s Annual Report 2003-2004, and ask -
(a) why, under the column ‘summary of reasons why trials did not proceed’, there were 51 ‘discontinuances’;
(b) were any of these ‘discontinuances’
nolle prosequis
; and
(c) of the
nolle prosequis
presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
(2) Will the Attorney General advise why such matters were considered necessary to be briefed out because of ‘considerable complexities’?
(3) Will the Attorney General advise which issues, identified in the Kalgoorlie Court circuit, led to the criteria for which the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions conducted such trials being reviewed?
(4) What are the new procedures which are being adopted in Kalgoorlie?
(5) What was the length of time a person had to wait in each of the Supreme and District Courts for a fast-track plea and sentence or a trial for the financial years -
(a) 2001-2002;
(b) 2002-2003;
(c) 2003-2004; and
(d) 2004-2005?
(6) What is the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s acceptable timeframe for processing cases and what steps is the Attorney General taking to move the backlog?
(7) I refer to page 11 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution’s Annual Report 2003-2004, and ask -
(a) why, under the column ‘summary of reasons why trials did not proceed’, there were 51 ‘discontinuances’;
(b) were any of these ‘discontinuances’
nolle prosequis
; and
(c) of the
nolle prosequis
presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
18 October 2005
Response time
26 days
(b) 2002-2003; (c) 2003-2004; and (d) 2004-2005?
(c) 2003-2004; and (d) 2004-2005?
(d) 2004-2005?
(b) were any of these ‘discontinuances’ nolle prosequis ; and (c) of the nolle prosequis presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
(c) of the nolle prosequis presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
1. The State v Gregory James Kennedy and Kenneth Francis O'Brien The State v Jeffrey Alan Christmas The State v Warren David Hanneybel The State v Lee Nora Steel 2. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ("ODPP") has a policy of conducting as much of its court work in-house as possible. However, when State Prosecutors with adequate the appropriate level of experienceexperienc and eexpertise in prosecuting long, complicated white collar cases, the trial duration in such cases are hard to predict, are unavailable due to other commitments, as was the case in the four instances referred to above, court work is briefed to counsel from the independent bar and private profession. 3. The issues were initially identified by certain stakeholders in the Kalgoorlie region at meetings with representatives in connection with the prosecution service noting the need to : (a) ensure witnesses' attendance at court; (b) enable witnesses to give evidence effectively; (c) improve communications with stakeholders; (d) ensure early and continued contact with victims/witnesses; (e) collect and collate statistical data; (f) raise cultural awareness; and (g) maintain consistency of ODPP staffing on circuit sittings. 4. The procedures developed and applied to the Kalgoorlie Circuit by the ODPP were adopted by the Kalgoorlie Pilot Project Steering Committee in April of 2004 and implemented by the Practice Manager responsible for the operation and delivery of the service. These addressed includedthe allocation of dedicated dedicating professional and clerical staff to the circuit staff to prosecute matters in Kalgoorlie circuit prosecutions who had experience and training in culturally sensitive cases. Internal strategies and procedures were developed to address the challenges and issues raised by stakeholders. Extra resources were applied to enable a higher level of focus on communication with stakeholders, cultural awareness, listings, file management, managing witnesses and statistics. This ensured the provision of a more culturally aware approach in dealing with and communicating with stakeholders. 5. The average length of time a person had to wait in the Supreme and District Courts for a fast-track plea and sentence or a trial for the financial years were: (a) 2001 - 2002 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial38 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial58 weeks (b) 2002 - 2003 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial42 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial58 weeks (c) 2003 - 2004 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial45 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial66 weeks (d) 2004 - 2005 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 17 weeks Trial47 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 6 weeks Trial65 weeks Neither the ODPP's case management system nor statistical information presently maintained enables this information to be produced. 6. The ODPP does not maintain a particular figure however, the question is always approached in terms of what reasonable preparation time is necessary to enable the formulation of a prosecution case and for the defence to properly prepare a response. The time will vary from case to case. The Attorney General has initiated significant amendments to the Criminal Law in accordance with the Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia which includes, inter alia, the abolition of preliminary hearings, the implementation of fast track procedures for pleas of guilty, facilitating less serious indictable matters being dealt with in the Magistrates Court and additional resources being made available to the District Court to enable the disposition of more criminal matters. 7. (a) A review on a file by file basis has identified 45 discontinuances, not 51 as referred to in the "Summary of reasons why trials did not proceed" Table from the 2003/2004 Annual Report (The discrepancy in numbers resulted from the office's case management system incorrectly double counting six matters). Of those 19 (42%) were discontinued because there were no reasonable prospects of conviction, 14 (31%) were discontinued because of the lack of a prima facie case against the accused and 12 (27%) were discontinued on the ground that there was no public interest in the prosecution proceeding. (b) All the discontinuances were achieved by filing a nolle prosequi. The term "discontinuance" is the term now used in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. (c) The 6 matters referred to in the "Summary of outcomes of matters appearing for Trial in District Court during 2003/04" Table were:- (i) The State v John Lewis Mayes and Terence John Mayes (District Court Indictment number 118/2003), The State v Paul William Godwin (District Court Indictment number 354/2003) and The State v Steven Michael Roberts (District Court Indictment number 1176/2002) which were each discontinued because there were no reasonable prospects of conviction; (ii) The State v Phillip Clark (District Court Indictment number 83/2003) and The State v Rebecca Louise Daniels (District Court Indictment number 704/2003) which were each discontinued because of the lack of a prima facie case against the accused. (iii) The State v Aaron John Raw and Brett Michael Reid (District Court Indictment number 523/2001) was discontinued because there was no public interest in the prosecution proceeding.
(c) 2003-2004; and (d) 2004-2005?
(d) 2004-2005?
(b) were any of these ‘discontinuances’ nolle prosequis ; and (c) of the nolle prosequis presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
(c) of the nolle prosequis presented to the Court under the column ‘summary of outcomes of matters appearing for trial in the District Court during 2003/04’, which matters were these and what were the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution?
1. The State v Gregory James Kennedy and Kenneth Francis O'Brien The State v Jeffrey Alan Christmas The State v Warren David Hanneybel The State v Lee Nora Steel 2. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ("ODPP") has a policy of conducting as much of its court work in-house as possible. However, when State Prosecutors with adequate the appropriate level of experienceexperienc and eexpertise in prosecuting long, complicated white collar cases, the trial duration in such cases are hard to predict, are unavailable due to other commitments, as was the case in the four instances referred to above, court work is briefed to counsel from the independent bar and private profession. 3. The issues were initially identified by certain stakeholders in the Kalgoorlie region at meetings with representatives in connection with the prosecution service noting the need to : (a) ensure witnesses' attendance at court; (b) enable witnesses to give evidence effectively; (c) improve communications with stakeholders; (d) ensure early and continued contact with victims/witnesses; (e) collect and collate statistical data; (f) raise cultural awareness; and (g) maintain consistency of ODPP staffing on circuit sittings. 4. The procedures developed and applied to the Kalgoorlie Circuit by the ODPP were adopted by the Kalgoorlie Pilot Project Steering Committee in April of 2004 and implemented by the Practice Manager responsible for the operation and delivery of the service. These addressed includedthe allocation of dedicated dedicating professional and clerical staff to the circuit staff to prosecute matters in Kalgoorlie circuit prosecutions who had experience and training in culturally sensitive cases. Internal strategies and procedures were developed to address the challenges and issues raised by stakeholders. Extra resources were applied to enable a higher level of focus on communication with stakeholders, cultural awareness, listings, file management, managing witnesses and statistics. This ensured the provision of a more culturally aware approach in dealing with and communicating with stakeholders. 5. The average length of time a person had to wait in the Supreme and District Courts for a fast-track plea and sentence or a trial for the financial years were: (a) 2001 - 2002 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial38 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial58 weeks (b) 2002 - 2003 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial42 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial58 weeks (c) 2003 - 2004 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 13 weeks Trial45 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 7 weeks Trial66 weeks (d) 2004 - 2005 Supreme Court Fast track plea and sentence Not an available option. Plea of guilty and sentence 17 weeks Trial47 weeks District Court Fast track plea and sentence 6 weeks Trial65 weeks Neither the ODPP's case management system nor statistical information presently maintained enables this information to be produced. 6. The ODPP does not maintain a particular figure however, the question is always approached in terms of what reasonable preparation time is necessary to enable the formulation of a prosecution case and for the defence to properly prepare a response. The time will vary from case to case. The Attorney General has initiated significant amendments to the Criminal Law in accordance with the Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia which includes, inter alia, the abolition of preliminary hearings, the implementation of fast track procedures for pleas of guilty, facilitating less serious indictable matters being dealt with in the Magistrates Court and additional resources being made available to the District Court to enable the disposition of more criminal matters. 7. (a) A review on a file by file basis has identified 45 discontinuances, not 51 as referred to in the "Summary of reasons why trials did not proceed" Table from the 2003/2004 Annual Report (The discrepancy in numbers resulted from the office's case management system incorrectly double counting six matters). Of those 19 (42%) were discontinued because there were no reasonable prospects of conviction, 14 (31%) were discontinued because of the lack of a prima facie case against the accused and 12 (27%) were discontinued on the ground that there was no public interest in the prosecution proceeding. (b) All the discontinuances were achieved by filing a nolle prosequi. The term "discontinuance" is the term now used in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004. (c) The 6 matters referred to in the "Summary of outcomes of matters appearing for Trial in District Court during 2003/04" Table were:- (i) The State v John Lewis Mayes and Terence John Mayes (District Court Indictment number 118/2003), The State v Paul William Godwin (District Court Indictment number 354/2003) and The State v Steven Michael Roberts (District Court Indictment number 1176/2002) which were each discontinued because there were no reasonable prospects of conviction; (ii) The State v Phillip Clark (District Court Indictment number 83/2003) and The State v Rebecca Louise Daniels (District Court Indictment number 704/2003) which were each discontinued because of the lack of a prima facie case against the accused. (iii) The State v Aaron John Raw and Brett Michael Reid (District Court Indictment number 523/2001) was discontinued because there was no public interest in the prosecution proceeding.
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.