Mr EDE - 1995-10-17
Last Friday, the Court of Criminal Appeal gave its reasons for judgment following the decision to acquit a Catholic brother on charges of gross indecency to males. The reasons for judgment by Justice Gallop, supported by Justices Angel and Thomas, bring into question the operation of prosecutions within both the Office of the DPP and the police service. The Chief Minister said on ABC radio last Friday that he would refer the matter of police prosecutions to the Commissioner of Police for inquiry. The reasons for judgment include:
The failure to call as witnesses any of those persons named whom the Crown knew were present, and the further
failure to provide any explanation at the trial of the Crown's failure to do so, is such a significant matter
that the convictions cannot be allowed to stand.
Does the Chief Minister accept that the judgment, in addition to being a criticism of police, amounts to a very substantial criticism of the DPP? Does he accept also that any inquiry into the operations of police prosecutions should be mirrored by an inquiry into the operations of the DPP?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not believe I used the word `inquiry' at any point during the interview. Indeed, I was very careful not to use the word `inquiry' because I understand that the opposition is preoccupied always with calling for inquiries and the like. What I did say was that I would be seeking a full briefing from the Commissioner of Police because some serious concerns were raised in the judgment. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a statutorily independent person. That is the whole rationale behind the appointment of the DPP and the way he or she may operate. It is not for me to have an inquiry conducted into the operations of an independent statutory officer. Opposition members come and talk continually here about an independent electoral officer and many other such offices that they want to see established but, in the next breath, they say that the government should become involved and hold an inquiry into the operations of such officers.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: Obviously, they do not ...
Mr Ede: People are walking free.
Mr STONE: You do not understand how it works - you can shake your head - and this is your problem ...
Mr Ede: We know how it works all right, or how it can be made to work. We know how it does not work.
Page 871
Mr STONE: This is your problem. Had this matter been prosecuted by a Crown Law officer of the Office of the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, you would be on stronger ground to come to me and say that these people report directly to the Chief Minister or the Attorney-General and therefore, I should pursue the matter. However, because the DPP is an independent statutory officer, all I can do in terms of a prosecution is ask the Commissioner of Police for a briefing on the police perspective on the way the investigation was handled.
I have done that. I did that immediately I read the judgment because there was some strident criticism of the way in which the prosecution case was run. Perhaps more than most, I understand the significance of what was said because that is what I used to do for a crust. Let us not jump the gun on this, but give the police the opportunity to be heard. This is very important. The police do not run the prosecution ...
Mr Ede: Exactly! He runs it.
Mr STONE: The DPP runs it.
Mr Ede: Exactly!
Mr STONE: Right - the DPP, who is an independent statutory officer.
Mr Ede: So why won't you inquire into the DPP?
Mr STONE: Would you think it proper that, based on a disagreement with the Auditor-General, you could come into this Chamber and call on me to hold an inquiry into the operations of the Office of the Auditor-General because you were unhappy with something that had occurred? That is the principle that you are advocating.
Mr Ede: However, 3 judges of the Supreme Court said this.
Mr STONE: They did. However, you have missed the point in all of it.
Mr Ede: You intend to ignore it. You are ignoring the DPP ...
Mr STONE: No, I am not ignoring it. You do not want to hear the answer!
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: You do not want to hear the answer.
Mr Ede: We do. We want to know why.
Mr STONE: A certain rule of propriety requires that the government be at arm's length from the Director of Public Prosecutions. You know that!
Page 872
Mr Stirling: We would have thought so - except that ministers walk in here with DPP files.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Manzie: They do not want to know. I would not explain it to them.
Mr Stirling: You were the minister, so you know.
Mr STONE: I am not the minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr Stirling: Manzie was. He trotted the DPP file in here. Don't talk about arm's length and independence to us.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister has the floor.
Mr STONE: I am pleased that the member for MacDonnell is not saying too much in all of this, because I recall his contribution to the debate when we were going through the process of setting up the DPP. I read subsequently what he had said. He knows that this is an independent statutory office. As Minister for Police, I have asked for a briefing from the police.
The Leader of the Opposition is very selective in what he says in this Chamber. He does not tell the whole story, but he knows that I indicated also in the radio interview that the Attorney-General would be seeking a briefing from the DPP. Thus, what he asks for is happening. Nevertheless, let us be very clear that I did not use the word `inquiry'. At no time did I use the word `inquiry'.
Page 873
The failure to call as witnesses any of those persons named whom the Crown knew were present, and the further
failure to provide any explanation at the trial of the Crown's failure to do so, is such a significant matter
that the convictions cannot be allowed to stand.
Does the Chief Minister accept that the judgment, in addition to being a criticism of police, amounts to a very substantial criticism of the DPP? Does he accept also that any inquiry into the operations of police prosecutions should be mirrored by an inquiry into the operations of the DPP?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not believe I used the word `inquiry' at any point during the interview. Indeed, I was very careful not to use the word `inquiry' because I understand that the opposition is preoccupied always with calling for inquiries and the like. What I did say was that I would be seeking a full briefing from the Commissioner of Police because some serious concerns were raised in the judgment. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a statutorily independent person. That is the whole rationale behind the appointment of the DPP and the way he or she may operate. It is not for me to have an inquiry conducted into the operations of an independent statutory officer. Opposition members come and talk continually here about an independent electoral officer and many other such offices that they want to see established but, in the next breath, they say that the government should become involved and hold an inquiry into the operations of such officers.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: Obviously, they do not ...
Mr Ede: People are walking free.
Mr STONE: You do not understand how it works - you can shake your head - and this is your problem ...
Mr Ede: We know how it works all right, or how it can be made to work. We know how it does not work.
Page 871
Mr STONE: This is your problem. Had this matter been prosecuted by a Crown Law officer of the Office of the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, you would be on stronger ground to come to me and say that these people report directly to the Chief Minister or the Attorney-General and therefore, I should pursue the matter. However, because the DPP is an independent statutory officer, all I can do in terms of a prosecution is ask the Commissioner of Police for a briefing on the police perspective on the way the investigation was handled.
I have done that. I did that immediately I read the judgment because there was some strident criticism of the way in which the prosecution case was run. Perhaps more than most, I understand the significance of what was said because that is what I used to do for a crust. Let us not jump the gun on this, but give the police the opportunity to be heard. This is very important. The police do not run the prosecution ...
Mr Ede: Exactly! He runs it.
Mr STONE: The DPP runs it.
Mr Ede: Exactly!
Mr STONE: Right - the DPP, who is an independent statutory officer.
Mr Ede: So why won't you inquire into the DPP?
Mr STONE: Would you think it proper that, based on a disagreement with the Auditor-General, you could come into this Chamber and call on me to hold an inquiry into the operations of the Office of the Auditor-General because you were unhappy with something that had occurred? That is the principle that you are advocating.
Mr Ede: However, 3 judges of the Supreme Court said this.
Mr STONE: They did. However, you have missed the point in all of it.
Mr Ede: You intend to ignore it. You are ignoring the DPP ...
Mr STONE: No, I am not ignoring it. You do not want to hear the answer!
Mr Ede interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: You do not want to hear the answer.
Mr Ede: We do. We want to know why.
Mr STONE: A certain rule of propriety requires that the government be at arm's length from the Director of Public Prosecutions. You know that!
Page 872
Mr Stirling: We would have thought so - except that ministers walk in here with DPP files.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Manzie: They do not want to know. I would not explain it to them.
Mr Stirling: You were the minister, so you know.
Mr STONE: I am not the minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr Stirling: Manzie was. He trotted the DPP file in here. Don't talk about arm's length and independence to us.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister has the floor.
Mr STONE: I am pleased that the member for MacDonnell is not saying too much in all of this, because I recall his contribution to the debate when we were going through the process of setting up the DPP. I read subsequently what he had said. He knows that this is an independent statutory office. As Minister for Police, I have asked for a briefing from the police.
The Leader of the Opposition is very selective in what he says in this Chamber. He does not tell the whole story, but he knows that I indicated also in the radio interview that the Attorney-General would be seeking a briefing from the DPP. Thus, what he asks for is happening. Nevertheless, let us be very clear that I did not use the word `inquiry'. At no time did I use the word `inquiry'.
Page 873
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016