Extracts from the South Australian Hansard - April 7 - May 3 - May 4 - May 5

Thursday, 7 April 2005: House of Assembly (extract)
ABRAHAM, Ms W.
Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg): My question is to the Attorney-General. When the Attorney-General offered Wendy Abraham QC a position on the bench, was he mindful of the fact that would remove her as prosecutor for the Premier’s adviser Randall Ashbourne?

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): I have absolutely no idea who the Office of the DPP will choose for that prosecution. Secondly, I notice that the Adelaide solicitor Eugene McGee is on trial in the court at the moment. I notice from watching the television news that the Office of the DPP has brought in an interstate prosecutor—which seems eminently sensible to me.

*********************************

Tuesday, 3 May 2005: Legislative Council

McGEE, Mr E.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Industry and Trade): I lay on the table a copy of a ministerial statement relating to the Eugene McGee trial royal commission made on Tuesday 3 May in another place by the Premier (Hon. M.D. Rann). In association with that, I also table the terms of reference of the royal commission into the investigation and trial of Eugene McGee.

*********************************

Tuesday, 3 May 2005: House of Assembly (extract)
McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.
\IND\Speech:nn:The Hon. M.D. RANN The Hon. M.D. RANN (Premier): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. I.P. LEWIS: Mr Speaker, are copies of the statement available?

The SPEAKER: It is being distributed now.

The Hon. I.P. LEWIS: Mr Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask that, in future, the subject matter of ministerial statements be flagged at the time that leave is sought?

The SPEAKER: The house seeks to do that, and it is being done now. It is always the intention that the paperwork be available at the time of the statement. The Premier has leave.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, sir. I am quite happy to wait until the material is distributed—and I can inform the honourable member that it relates to the Eugene McGee trial.
The SPEAKER: The Premier may commence his statement.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, sir. The tragic death of cyclist Ian Humphrey in a shocking hit and run collision on 30 November 2003 has touched all decent South Australians. I have made my views known about the lack of humanity shown by Eugene McGee, the driver who killed Ian Humphrey and left him for dead on the side of the road.

The investigation of Ian Humphrey’s death and the subsequent trial of McGee have given rise to a number of issues that the government intends to address in the public interest. Firstly, today the Attorney-General will give notice of the introduction of a bill to enact legislation to increase the penalty tenfold for drivers who negligently or recklessly cause the death or serious injury of another person and then flee the scene. Hit and run drivers who cause death or injury will be subject to the same maximum penalty of 10 years as drivers who cause death by dangerous driving. If passed, there will no longer be any incentive for irresponsible drivers to flee the scene of the crime. The loophole that provides for a lesser term for cowardice will be closed.

The bill will also increase the maximum penalty for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving in aggravated circumstances such as fleeing police apprehen­sion, having a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or greater, driving under the influence of drugs or excessive speeding. Those convicted of an aggravated offence of causing death by dangerous driving will face a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment if this legislation is passed by the parliament. The maximum penalty for repeat offenders will also be increased.

Secondly, the government will establish a royal commission to consider a number of issues relating to the investigation and prosecution of offences committed by McGee. The royal commission will consider the following issues:

##5×the failure to breath test or blood test McGee following his arrest to determine the level of blood alcohol concen­tration;

×whether the principal prosecution witness, Mr Tony Felice, was given adequate opportunity to give evidence on the issue of whether McGee was attempting to overtake Mr Felice immediately before the collision;

×what information Tony and John Zisimou gave to the police and why they were not called to give evidence at the trial;

×whether there was adequate opportunity for the prosecu­tion to present rebuttal evidence at the trial in relation to psychiatric evidence presented by the defence and, if so, why such evidence was not presented;

×whether psychiatric evidence should have been presented by the prosecution as part of the sentencing hearing and, if so, whether there was adequate opportunity to do so; and, if so, why no such evidence was presented.

The royal commission will inquire into and make findings and recommendations in relation to those issues. It will also be invited to make any recommendations in relation to changes to any law, practice or procedure it considers necessary and practicable arising from its findings. The government is determined to ensure that the justice system learns from this tragic experience and that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Rather than eroding the fabric of our justice system, as claimed by those who do not want scrutiny, we want this inquiry and our actions to strengthen the system.

The royal commission will have extensive powers to undertake its inquiries. Under the Royal Commission Act, the commissioner will have the power to:

×Summons witnesses;

×summons the production of documents or records; and

×examine witnesses on oath.

Under the terms of the act, the royal commission may at its discretion take evidence in public or private. Unless the commissioner directs otherwise, persons appearing before it may be represented by counsel or a solicitor. However, the government does not intend to fund counsel or solicitors at any hearings conducted by the commission. I want this inquiry to be undertaken as quickly and professionally as possible. I do not want another expensive and long lawyers’ frolic—

Mr Brindal: Like the State Bank Royal Commission?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley is out of order.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I would have thought that all members of this house would be interested in finding justice on this issue.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: According to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport and the member for Unley. The member for Unley is off to a bad start.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I am particularly interested in changes that will prevent the prosecution from being ambushed at trial by psychiatric and other expert evidence without the opportunity to properly test that evidence. I was also concerned to learn that there may have been some difficulty in this case in the presentation of the victim impact statement. The government is therefore interested to hear directly from victims’ organisations about how the process for presenting victim impact statements to court can be further improved. The Attorney-General will be following this up with victims’ groups.

I want victims and the families of victims, like Ms Gilchrist-Humphrey, to have every opportunity to present their views to the court. The royal commission will be asked to report as soon as practicable and no later than 20 June 2005. The government intends to recommend to Her Excel­lency the Governor that former justice Gregory Reginald James QC of New South Wales be appointed as the commis­sioner to undertake the inquiry. Gregory James QC is eminently qualified to undertake this inquiry. He has served a distinguished legal career, practising in all states and territories in Australia. Former justice James QC retired from the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 1 May 2005, last Sunday. He was appointed as Justice of the Court on 14 April 1998.

Prior to his appointment to the bench, former justice James practised as a barrister and was involved in a number of significant trials and royal commissions. He was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1982. Mr James prosecuted the Australian war crimes trials in South Australia between 1990 and 1994. He has appeared in the royal commissions into British nuclear tests in Australia; into Aboriginal deaths in custody; into WA Inc.; and into the New South Wales building industry. Mr James is a commissioner (part time) of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission.

He was formerly vice-chairman of the Australian Criminal Lawyers’ Association and chairman of the New South Wales Criminal Lawyers’ Association, director of the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law and consultant to the Australian Law Reform Commission. Mr James is aged 60 and is married with two children.

*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Question:nn:The Hon. R.G. KERIN The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the royal commission into the Eugene McGee case assess whether underfunding of the DPP’s office was a contributing factor in the prosecution’s management of the case? In the aftermath of the case, there has been considerable comment about the prosecution’s failure to rebut psychiatric evidence provided by the defence or to introduce evidence from two witnesses who have raised questions about the defendant’s driving on the day of the accident.

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): The royal commission will deal with all matters that might have led to any deficiencies in the prosecution of Eugene McGee. What I can say is that only efforts to improve resources to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have occurred under this government. From memory, there have been five separate special increases, recurrent increases, to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions since this government came to office. In fact, just to make that more precise, I think it is four recurrent increases and a one-off increase to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There was a report into the underfunding of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions during the term of the previous government, and nothing was done in the budget by the then Liberal government to act on that report. However, that report’s recommendations have been largely fulfilled by this government, which has made a series of increases in real terms to the budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to get the case load of individual prosecutors down from the backbreaking level that it was under the former attorney-general—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Money has been provided well ahead of the consumer price index. Indeed, under this government, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been one of the most generously treated agencies in the whole of government.

*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Question:nn:Mr BROKENSHIRE Mr BROKENSHIRE (Mawson): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the royal commission into the Eugene McGee case assess whether the inability of the government to honour its undertaking to provide additional police was a contributing factor in the failure of the police department processes in its investigation and, in particular, its failure to breath test Eugene McGee after the accident?

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): The question of why Mr McGee was not breath-tested is a matter before the royal commission.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Speaker, with the exception of the member for Hammond, the people who are disrupting and interrupting this parliament are all members of the Liberal Party. The breath-testing of Mr McGee, as I said, is a matter before the royal commission.

Mrs Redmond: What royal commission?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The royal commission that was just announced. If the member for Heysen had been listening earlier she would have heard it announced. If the member for Mawson mixed with police as much as he claims he would know that no police officer is authorised to breath test an alleged offender more than two hours after the accident or incident. That is the law of South Australia and it is police practice, and has been for many years. That was impressed on me as recently as Friday by the President of the Police Association, Mr Peter Alexander. Far from police resources being an issue, on the contrary, the Labor government in this state is engaged in hiring more police officers so that there will be more police officers in absolute terms and per head of population than at any time in South Australia’s history. The South Australian Police Department is well resourced by this Labor government.

One White

Mr BROKENSHIRE: Sir, I have a supplementary question. Based on what the Attorney-General just said to the parliament and given that the Attorney-General said there are more police now, why did he advise 5AA that there was a considerable underspend in the current police budget for salaries because there were not sufficient police and recruits to take up that salary assessment and allocation? I am advised that in the last week—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: That’s not a question.

Mr BROKENSHIRE: Yes, it is.

The SPEAKER: It is more of a statement, I think. The Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Speaker, it is well known that, although the most generous provision ever has been made for police recruitment in the state’s history by this government, there has been a difficulty in hiring sufficient police—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Bragg!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There has been difficulty—

The Hon. W.A. Matthew interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Bright!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —in hiring suitable police recruits. I would have hoped that the Liberal Opposition would agree with the government that, before someone is recruited as a police officer or for police training, those people must be very carefully scrutinised and checked so that suitable people are hired and, for that reason, police officers have been brought from the United Kingdom, ready-made police officers, to form part of that police complement. Despite the most unpleasant reflections that have been made on these recruits by the member for Mawson, we are pleased that bobbies are coming to Australia to serve in the South Australia Police.

*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Question:nn:Mrs REDMOND Mrs REDMOND (Heysen): Was the Attorney-General aware that, for several months prior to the McGee case, the Office of the DPP had been pressing for changes to legisla­tion to require pretrial disclosure of expert evidence? The former DPP (Paul Rofe QC) has publicly stated that this government rejected suggestions that the law be amended to prevent defence ambushing prosecution in criminal trials with unanticipated expert testimony. My question seeks informa­tion about when the Attorney-General became aware of this problem.

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): Problems with the criminal trial were apparent even before we came into government, which is why Justice Martin brought down a series of recommendations about how to reform the criminal trial. These recommendations have been made periodically ever since I started law school in 1976. The difficulty is that it is very hard to reach agreement between all elements of the criminal justice system. After discussions with Mr Rofe, who was then the Director of Public Prosecu­tions, the matter was referred to a committee comprising Justice Duggan, who is a criminal law specialist, Justice Sulan of the Supreme Court, Justice Rice of the District Court, Wendy Abraham—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Good memory.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —of a blessed memory—was on the committee dealing with just this topic together with Gordon Barrett, a renowned defence lawyer. There are many more issues than the question of defence disclosure. There is also the question of prosecution disclosure.

Mrs REDMOND: I rise on a point of order. My question specifically sought from the Attorney-General an answer to when he became aware of the problem.

The SPEAKER: The Attorney will answer that issue.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The answer is periodically since 1976.

*****************************

GRIEVANCE DEBATE\TOC\2\GRIEVANCE DEBATE

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Speech:nn:Mrs REDMOND Mrs REDMOND (Heysen): I want to address the house today on the issue of the Eugene McGee case. In so doing, I will read my comments because I have rather a lot to say. I do not usually read my grieves, but I want to say a fair bit. As a legislator in this parliament and a former lawyer, there are things about this case that trouble me quite deeply. I never thought there would be anything about which I would agree with the Premier, but it seems our views about Mr McGee may be largely at one. He is a disgrace to the human race. As far as I am concerned, he is completely lacking in moral fibre and I can only hope that he is tormented for the rest of his days because of what he did—or, rather, what he failed to do. He put self-interest above the life of another human being whose life he took. I know that the rider of the bike, Mr Humphrey, when he was hit by McGee, died instantly. That much is said by Chief Judge Worthington in his reasons for judgment, and it is clear to him from the results of the autopsy and the evidence of witnesses repeated during the trial.

However, the point is that McGee—and I will not even bother to give the title `Mr’ because, as far as I am concerned, he is less than human and certainly not a man—did not know, when that accident occurred, the state in which he left that cyclist. He did not stop to find out. As I said, I hope he is tormented for the rest of his life about that—and tormented by others because I do not think he has the moral capacity to torment himself.

Putting aside McGee though, there are a number of other aspects to the case which I think deserve attention from the parliament as the people responsible for our law making, though not for its interpretation. We cannot complain that some sort of favourable deal was done. The case did proceed to trial and it was not the result of some deal about whether or not it would be prosecuted. It went to a trial by jury, not even trial by just a judge. But there are still a couple of questions left hanging.

First, the breath test or, rather, the lack of it. The police originally said that they were too busy to render the test. If that is so, then I suspect the government may be to blame. It has failed to put in place sufficient resources for our police to properly fulfil their duties. Later, of course, it was pointed out that such a test would probably be inadmissible in any event, being conducted more than two hours after the event. If that is so, then that is clearly a shortcoming in the law and one which our government should have addressed in its three years in office. In any event, I have no doubt that McGee, being knowledgeable about these things, if confronted with a breath test or a blood test (when he finally did go to the police), would have said, `I had a couple of Scotches to calm my nerves when I got home,’ thus destroying the validity of any read-back as to what his blood alcohol level might have been at the time of the accident. Maybe that is another loophole that needs to be addressed.

In relation to the evidence of the brothers who say they saw McGee driving dangerously prior to the accident, having read the statement of Judge Worthington in the final judgment, it is clear it really was not proven that he was driving like that; and, furthermore, it is really a problem as to whether or not their statements were taken down correctly. I think that is something which probably should be the subject of investigation.

Given that the DPP had only the written statements upon which to assess what their evidence was, and given there was no mention in their written statements as to McGee’s driving, it is unfair to suggest the DPP did not do its job properly. Dangerous driving is a charge which will need evidence, not just supposition, and the judge makes quite specific findings about it in his reasons. The DPP even went so far as to call in a prosecutor from interstate, not because anyone here was not willing to do the job but because the Office of the DPP knew that such a case cannot even have the suggestion that McGee received favourable treatment.

#24 As for the conduct of the trial, there are some major issues which need to be addressed and, most particularly, the evidence of Professor MacFarlane regarding McGee’s alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. Professor MacFarlane is the leading authority on the disorder, indeed, I think he wrote the definition of it that appears in the diagnostic and statistical manual which is the text book for these diagnoses. He is a man of great integrity and shoots it as straight as an arrow when it comes to giving evidence. He does not give a line for either side: he just calls it as he sees it as a clinician. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of his evidence. However, what is startling is the fact that essentially it was uncontested, and this is due to the failure of this government to address the problems within the system which had been brought to its attention by the DPP well before this trial came about. It is an issue that the government should have addressed well beforehand.

The judge in coming to his conclusions was stuck with finding the way in which he did. I have only the utmost respect for his Honour Judge Worthington, the Chief Judge of the District Court. His reasons for judgment are straight­forward. The law left him with no alternative but to find the way in which he did. The jury had decided McGee’s guilt of the charge, and within the sentencing provisions there was no basis for a result far removed from what he was able to impose. I cannot stress enough how it is this government’s failure—not the failure of the legal profession which it continues to attack, but the government’s failure to address the issues in this case.

Time expired.
At 7.49 p.m. the house adjourned until Wednesday 4 May at 2 p.m.

*********************************

Wednesday, 4 May 2005: House of Assembly (extract)
LAW AND ORDER\TOC\2\LAW AND ORDER
\IND\Question:nn:The Hon. J.F. STEFANI The Hon. J.F. STEFANI: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industry and Trade, representing the Attorney-General, a question about correspondence received from the former DPP.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.F. STEFANI: The Rann Labor Government has been promoting its tough stance on law and order, promising the South Australian community protection from serious criminal offences. I refer to an article in The Sunday Mail of 1 May 2005 headed `Trials derailed—Rofe warning’. In the article, the former DPP, Mr Paul Rofe QC, indicated that he had warned the state government of flaws in the legal system that allowed defendants to escape convictions for major crimes. Mr Rofe specifically referred to rules that allow defence teams to call expert witnesses with little or no notice. He is quoted as saying, `Its derailed quite a few trials’. He further said, `Psychiatric evidence can be used to absolve the defendant of responsibility. It’s quite hard to find someone to contradict that evidence if you’ve only had a day’s notice’. In view of these statements, my questions are:

1. On what date did the Attorney-General or the Rann Labor government receive representations from the DPP?

2. What steps has the Attorney-General taken to address the concerns of the DPP, and on what date?

3. Will the Attorney-General table the correspondence that the Rann Labor government has received in relation to these issues?

4. What action has the Attorney-General taken on behalf of the Rann Labor government to correct the problems identified by the DPP?

5. Will the Attorney-General advise the parliament how many trials have been derailed before and since the receipt of this correspondence from Mr Rofe?

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Industry and Trade): First, in relation to the latter question, I am not sure what the honourable member means by `trials that have been derailed’, and I do not know whether that can be easily measured. However, I will refer those questions to the Attorney-General and bring back a reply. Mr Rofe’s com­ments came out of the Eugene McGee case. Of course, those matters are all going to be part of the royal commission into the matter which has now been established by the government.

*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Speech:nn:The Hon. R.D. LAWSON The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I wish to discuss elements of the government’s disgraceful performance in relation to the case of Eugene McGee. McGee was charged with causing death by driving in a manner dangerous to the public, and failing to stop and give assistance in respect of an incident which occurred on 30 November 2003, in which a cyclist Mr Ian Humphrey was tragically killed. McGee was tried before a jury in the District Court and acquitted of causing death by driving in a manner dangerous to the public. He was convicted of the alternative offence of driving without due care. He had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to stop and give assistance. For these offences he was fined $3 100 and disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for 12 months.

These proceedings have given rise to considerable disquiet in the community and, in particular, outrage at the apparently lenient sentence. Very early on, it appeared that there were elements of the police investigation which required examin­ation and, in particular, the failure of police to obtain a breath analysis from Mr McGee when he surrendered to police some six hours after Mr Humphrey had died. There were other witnesses who said they had testimony to give, but that testimony was not presented to the court. There was wide­spread scepticism about the evidence given by Professor Sandy McFarlane, which suggested that McGee’s conduct after the collision could be explained by reason of a psychiat­ric condition known as a disassociative state.

The opposition called for an inquiry. We believed it was appropriate that the organs of government which were responsible for this prosecution ought be subject to examin­ation. These were the police and the prosecution service, both of which are government agencies for whom the Premier and the Attorney-General have ministerial responsibility, as well as the Minister for Police. The way in which the Premier has approached this issue has been appalling.

Claiming to be the champion of law and order, the Premier has done everything possible to undermine public confidence in our judicial system. He has undermined our confidence in the jury system, and undermined confidence in the rule of law. He has been insulting and offensive, and the terms of reference with which the government has come up are a typical sleazy effort in order to divert attention from the government’s own failures. These are narrow terms of reference which focus on minor issues, such as why the police did not take an alco test. They do not require the royal commissioner to engage in a comprehensive examination of the investigation that was undertaken.

The Hon. T.G. Cameron: It is just a bit more politics for the next election—a half a million dollar campaign.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: As the Hon. Terry Cameron says, it is a bit more politics. The Attorney-General was on the air this morning saying that the purpose of this inquiry, according to the Attorney-General, is to allay public concerns about this matter, and in particular to allay fears that there was some impropriety or corrupt activity. That is what the Attorney-General is saying the purpose of this inquiry is to rebut. However, the terms of reference do not require the commissioner to investigate the question of whether there was any impropriety—he is not entitled to go outside the terms of reference.

The terms of reference have been drawn up in a narrow fashion, because the government thinks it has the answers and so that the focus of criticism will not fall upon itself. These terms of reference are a cover-up and a whitewash. The government refuses to allow these witnesses, these citizens and this family—in fact, the government will not provide legal assistance and support for the family of this victim.

520 The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Shameful!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: It is shameful conduct on behalf of this government. It will not provide suport for those citizens who have come forward and said they were witness­es. This government and this Attorney-General are more inclined and very happy to bag those people—blame others—but it does not take responsibility itself.

Time expired.

*********************************

Thursday, 5 May 2005: House of Assembly
McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Speech:nn:Mrs REDMOND Mrs REDMOND (Heysen): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.

Mrs REDMOND: Earlier today, in question time, I believe the Premier misrepresented what I said to this chamber on Tuesday in the course of a grievance debate about Mr Eugene McGee. The Premier asserted that, in particular, there were three areas I thought warranted investigation, those being the evidence of the Zisimou brothers, the lack of a breath test and the evidence of Professor MacFarlane in the case of Eugene McGee and the hit-run. I want to put on the record and make very clear the way in which I was misrepresented. Whilst I agree that, on the issue of the brothers, I made it clear that I felt that an investigation was warranted. Regarding the other two issues—the evidence of Professor MacFarlane and the breath test—I was not saying that at all. I did not say that they were worthy of investigation. What I said in my contribution was that they were areas the government should have addressed prior to this issue becoming the problem it has now become. They were issues about which the government was aware, and the government should have addressed them. That was the essence of what I said, not that all three areas needed investigation.
*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Speech:nn:The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yesterday I informed the house that, although it was not the government’s intention to fund from taxpayers’ money lawyers to represent all those people affected by royal commission, the government would consider funding legal representation for the Humphrey family. I have now taken advice on ways of doing this and can advise the house that the Victims of Crime Act authorises the Attorney-General to make an ex gratia payment for the benefit of victims of crime. Such a payment is not limited to victims who have been injured. Ex gratia payments can assist victims to overcome the effects of a crime or to advance the interests of victims. I refer the house to the statements made by the Hon. K.T. Griffin on 16 May 2001 during the debate on the Victims of Crime Bill. He said:

The bill goes further than the present act in another respect. It adds a new power to make discretionary payments to victims who do not assert that they have suffered an injury at all but who seek financial assistance to overcome the effects of a crime. These applications can be made by letter and it will not be necessary to issue court proceedings. These will not be lump sum payments in recognition of harm as other ex gratia payments may be, but payments towards particular identified expenses which, in the Attorney-General’s opinion, have been necessitated by the offence and will help the victim recover. An application will be considered on its merits by the Attorney-General or his delegate.

It is a matter for the commissioner, Gregory James QC, as to whether members of the victim’s family, including Di Gilchrist, are granted rights of appearance before the royal commission. If such a right of appearance is granted by the commissioner, I would then advise Ms Gilchrist to make an application for an ex gratia payment pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act. If such an application is made, I will consider the application on its merits at the time.

#39TAKE IN H:\PAPERS50505.PAP

ha papers

PAPER TABLED

*********************************

McGEE, Mr E.\TOC\2\McGEE, Mr E.

\IND\Question:nn:Mr SNELLING Mr SNELLING (Playford): Can the Premier confirm that Her Excellency the Governor has today appointed a commissioner with sufficient terms of reference to undertake an inquiry into key aspects of the investigation into offences by Eugene McGee and his subsequent trial?

\IND\Answer:nn:The Hon. M.D. RANN The Hon. M.D. RANN (Premier): I can say in response to the previous ministerial statement that personally I would be very happy to contribute financially to the cost of a lawyer if that would assist the victim’s family, and I know that other members on this side of the house would be as well. I am sure that there are decent lawyers—and there are many of them—who would be prepared to do the work for nothing to assist the family.

I can confirm that today Her Excellency the Governor in Executive Council appointed Gregory Reginald James QC as a commissioner to undertake an inquiry into the investigation of offences committed by McGee and his trial. The govern­ment is confident that the terms of reference, which I outlined to the house on Tuesday this week, will enable a thorough and speedy inquiry.

I have made it abundantly clear that the government will favourably consider any request from the Commissioner to broaden the terms of reference if he considers this necessary once he has commenced his inquiry. So, if he needs extra powers, if he wants to widen the terms of reference, all he has to do is to say so and that will be done.

I understand that staff are working towards placing a notice in the weekend paper inviting submissions to the royal commission. Hearings may commence as early as next week. Officers of the Attorney-General’s Department currently are working with the Commissioner to engage counsel assisting and other legal and administrative support for the Commis­sioner. Arrangements are also being made to secure suitable accommodation. I was amused but not surprised to hear some members of the opposition claim that the focus of the royal commission was too narrow. The shadow attorney-general, Robert Lawson, in his usual politically duplicitous response has said that he wants—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No, you listen to what he said and work it out for yourselves.

Mr BRINDAL: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, I have two points of order, sir. The first is offering comment in answer to a question. The second is that I believe former speaker Lewis ruled that it was a grave discour­tesy to this house to set up a question which should be offered into the house in the form of a ministerial statement. This is a very important statement and should have been presented as a ministerial statement.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member is going beyond a point of order. I do not believe the Premier has strayed from answering the question at this point.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, sir. The shadow attorney-general has said that he wants a comprehensive examination into the investigation and prosecution, but he does not want to revisit the verdict or sentence. Just what does he want? On the one hand, he said there was a need for an inquiry, and then said that I was sleazy for establishing an inquiry. I established a royal commission, and then he cries, `cover-up.’ Does that make any sense? This guy should go back to conveyancing. The Liberal opposition is engaged in political posturing without any regard for victims and their family.

#41 Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. The Deputy Leader.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: It is clearly a debate in contravention of standing order 98.

The SPEAKER: Yes. I was distracted for a minute talking to the Clerk. The Premier should not debate the answer. I think he should wind up his answer.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The member for Heysen does not appear to agree with her colleagues. On Tuesday she told the house that the issues which need to be considered are: the failure to breath-test McGee, what the Zisimou brothers told the police, and why Professor McFarlane’s psychiatric evidence was not contested. Well, that is exactly what they are asking the Royal Commissioner to do. Those issues and others will be examined by Commissioner James QC. Perhaps the member for Heysen should have a word to her colleagues and correct them; she is clearly a better lawyer.

The key elements for the terms of reference are: why McGee was not breath-tested or blood-tested to determine his blood alcohol concentration on arrest; whether the principal prosecution witness, Tony Felice, was given a proper opportunity to give evidence about whether McGee was attempting to overtake, as claimed by McGee; what the Zisimou brothers told the police, and why they were not called at the trial; and whether psychiatric evidence should have been presented by the prosecution at trial and at the sentencing hearing, and, if so, why it was not.

There has been some suggestion by the police association that the Commissioner should consider reform of the law in relation to requirements on police about breath-testing suspect drivers. The terms of reference given to the Commissioner require him to make any recommendations he con­siders necessary and practicable for the reform of any law, practice or procedure arising from his findings. The government has covered all the issues, and I thank the member for Heysen for her support when she told the house on Tuesday that our views about McGee appeared to be largely warrant­ed.

The Hon. I.P. Lewis: What about his evil criminal connections and the victims—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is out of order.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: On the other hand, he does not seem to be able to make up his mind on critical issues affecting the justice system in the state.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: Point of order. It is a contravention of standing order 98.

The SPEAKER: The latter part was not so much debate, but there was an earlier part where the Premier was getting into debate. The bulk of the last bit was not debate.

Sphere: Related Content