The Advertiser: TOO MANY MISTAKES: McGee hit-and-run finding [16jul05] By NIGEL HUNT
THE Kapunda Road Royal Commission has found that the police investigation into the Eugene McGee hit-run case was not carried out “appropriately, efficiently and expeditiously”. But it has cleared the police involved of any corruption, inappropriate behaviour or favouritism toward McGee during the investigation.

The 230-page report of commissioner Greg James, QC, also makes more than 20 major recommendations concerning changes to legislation and police practices. The recommendations – which were revealed in The Advertiser yesterday – include a revamp of legislation concerning the taking of blood from suspects, that fleeing a crime to prevent evidence being gathered be an offence and that altering blood alcohol content after an accident be an offence.

Besides criticising the police investigation into the accident that claimed the life of cyclist Ian Humphrey, Mr James also questioned the actions of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in not calling expert evidence at McGee’s sentencing hearing to rebut expert defence testimony.

Premier Mike Rann said the findings had reinforced his decision to hold the inquiry.
“This case had too many unanswered questions and South Australians were entitled to know much more,” he said. Mr Rann said, after reading the separate confidential report containing evidence that may support further charges against McGee and his brother Craig, he found it “quite extraordinary.”

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the 14-page closed report was being delivered to Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras QC for consideration late yesterday. Mr Atkinson said he also had written to the Legal Practitioner’s Conduct Board asking it to suspend McGee.

In the report, Mr James made several significant findings in connection with the police investigation, including:

THERE was a delay by SA Police in locating and interviewing McGee.

THERE was confusion over command and roles within SA Police.

THERE was confusion over whether police should arrest or report McGee.

Mr James found accident investigator Sergeant Dan Hassell did not ask McGee to submit to a blood test because he was unfamiliar with the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act and ambiguity and confusion surrounded its use. He has recommended all police be comprehensively trained in its use.

Police Commissioner Mal Hyde said he accepted the criticism of the investigation. He said under the terms of reference relating to the police investigations, however, anything less than “perfection” would have attracted an adverse finding. “I acknowledge some criticism of the way the investigation was conducted and note the Royal Commissioner’s recognition that the legislation is unclear around blood testing procedures,” he said.

“Some shortcomings have been identified in the Major Crash Investigation. Steps have already been taken to improve management and practices in this critical area and we shall examine suggestions for change to further improve operations.” Mr Hyde said he also welcomed the findings that individual police had been cleared of any misconduct and that there was no deliberate omission of statements made by witness Tony Zisimou.

Police Association president Peter Alexander said police had been vindicated in the findings. “No findings of corrupt or illegal practices have been made and it has been clearly identified that police exhibited no favouritism to Mr McGee in the course of this investigation,” he said.

“The lack of sufficient powers for police to undertake their duties was clearly evident and recommendations for legislative change made by the royal commission are supported by the association. The investigation was inhibited by a lack of legislative support. “The association supported its members who were the subject of unfair speculation about the conduct of the investigation and is very pleased that their integrity remains intact.”

Di Gilcrist, the widow of cyclist Ian Humphrey, said she felt “vindicated” by the report findings. She said she finally felt her efforts in raising questions over the past 19 months had been recognised. “It is what I have been looking for,” she said.

“All of the questions I have raised have been addressed. I feel some sense of achievement in what has been done.” Ms Gilcrist said she hoped the report’s recommendations would be adopted but said the “proof will be in the pudding.”

She said she had given no thought toward what should now happen to McGee but still wanted him to acknowledge what he had done. “I don’t think I am ever going to get that,” she said. “Even if he gave me an apology I would have to wonder if it was heartfelt or whether it was orchestrated.”