❓ Mr. Johnson questions the Attorney General about a perceived increase in acquittals for serious offences. The Attorney General deflects, citing the independence of the DPP and questioning the accuracy of the opposition's figures regarding DPP caseloads.
AnsweredQoN 426Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ACQUITTAL RATE FOR SERIOUS OFFENCES
As a supplementary question, if all that is good news that the Attorney General is delivering, why is it that we are seeing such a massive increase in the number of acquittals? Mr J.A. McGINTY
As a supplementary question, if all that is good news that the Attorney General is delivering, why is it that we are seeing such a massive increase in the number of acquittals? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
Many years ago we appreciated the need to ensure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an office independent of government, although certainly funded by government, and to ensure that for prosecutorial decisions, the discretion of when to prosecute and how to prosecute was made by an independent officer, not somebody who was subject to governmental control or political influence. I will put that question to that independent officer. I am more than happy to try to ascertain whether the member’s figures are correct, but I suspect that they are not, and I will tell the member why. Try this, for example: I have a press release put out today by the member for Hillarys, who has asserted - this could not possibly be true - in the second paragraph - . . . the Opposition has revealed that since December last year - that is, over nine months - the DPP has been given almost 6,800 cases to prosecute . . . It further states - “Because of the Carpenter Government’s under-resourcing, each DPP lawyer has an average of as many as 18 cases at any one time to deal with. There are 102 lawyers in the Office of the DPP. If they have an average of 18 cases to deal with, that is 1 800 cases and not 6 800, as the member has suggested, which could not possibly be true.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Many years ago we appreciated the need to ensure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an office independent of government, although certainly funded by government, and to ensure that for prosecutorial decisions, the discretion of when to prosecute and how to prosecute was made by an independent officer, not somebody who was subject to governmental control or political influence. I will put that question to that independent officer. I am more than happy to try to ascertain whether the member’s figures are correct, but I suspect that they are not, and I will tell the member why. Try this, for example: I have a press release put out today by the member for Hillarys, who has asserted - this could not possibly be true - in the second paragraph - . . . the Opposition has revealed that since December last year - that is, over nine months - the DPP has been given almost 6,800 cases to prosecute . . . It further states - “Because of the Carpenter Government’s under-resourcing, each DPP lawyer has an average of as many as 18 cases at any one time to deal with. There are 102 lawyers in the Office of the DPP. If they have an average of 18 cases to deal with, that is 1 800 cases and not 6 800, as the member has suggested, which could not possibly be true.
Many years ago we appreciated the need to ensure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an office independent of government, although certainly funded by government, and to ensure that for prosecutorial decisions, the discretion of when to prosecute and how to prosecute was made by an independent officer, not somebody who was subject to governmental control or political influence. I will put that question to that independent officer. I am more than happy to try to ascertain whether the member’s figures are correct, but I suspect that they are not, and I will tell the member why. Try this, for example: I have a press release put out today by the member for Hillarys, who has asserted - this could not possibly be true - in the second paragraph - . . . the Opposition has revealed that since December last year - that is, over nine months - the DPP has been given almost 6,800 cases to prosecute . . . It further states - “Because of the Carpenter Government’s under-resourcing, each DPP lawyer has an average of as many as 18 cases at any one time to deal with. There are 102 lawyers in the Office of the DPP. If they have an average of 18 cases to deal with, that is 1 800 cases and not 6 800, as the member has suggested, which could not possibly be true.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Many years ago we appreciated the need to ensure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an office independent of government, although certainly funded by government, and to ensure that for prosecutorial decisions, the discretion of when to prosecute and how to prosecute was made by an independent officer, not somebody who was subject to governmental control or political influence. I will put that question to that independent officer. I am more than happy to try to ascertain whether the member’s figures are correct, but I suspect that they are not, and I will tell the member why. Try this, for example: I have a press release put out today by the member for Hillarys, who has asserted - this could not possibly be true - in the second paragraph - . . . the Opposition has revealed that since December last year - that is, over nine months - the DPP has been given almost 6,800 cases to prosecute . . . It further states - “Because of the Carpenter Government’s under-resourcing, each DPP lawyer has an average of as many as 18 cases at any one time to deal with. There are 102 lawyers in the Office of the DPP. If they have an average of 18 cases to deal with, that is 1 800 cases and not 6 800, as the member has suggested, which could not possibly be true.
Many years ago we appreciated the need to ensure that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was an office independent of government, although certainly funded by government, and to ensure that for prosecutorial decisions, the discretion of when to prosecute and how to prosecute was made by an independent officer, not somebody who was subject to governmental control or political influence. I will put that question to that independent officer. I am more than happy to try to ascertain whether the member’s figures are correct, but I suspect that they are not, and I will tell the member why. Try this, for example: I have a press release put out today by the member for Hillarys, who has asserted - this could not possibly be true - in the second paragraph - . . . the Opposition has revealed that since December last year - that is, over nine months - the DPP has been given almost 6,800 cases to prosecute . . . It further states - “Because of the Carpenter Government’s under-resourcing, each DPP lawyer has an average of as many as 18 cases at any one time to deal with. There are 102 lawyers in the Office of the DPP. If they have an average of 18 cases to deal with, that is 1 800 cases and not 6 800, as the member has suggested, which could not possibly be true.
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.