Page 5495 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But sentences for manslaughter can range from that sort of range—
he was talking about a particular case—
right down to, in some instances, bonds, and immediate release without imprisonment, depending on the circumstances of the manslaughter. There is plenty of flexibility available …
You referred to commentary about the level of sentences. I asked a question about whether there had been any appeals on the basis of leniency. He said that there had not been in relation to murder or manslaughter. The main point that he made on this occasion was this. Again he said:
I have attempted to scrutinise carefully any sentences that are handed down with a view to appealing against any sentences that I thought were inappropriately light. I have done that in a number of instances.
Then he said, and this is the killer:
I think that is the better way for DPP to give its commentary on level of sentences, rather than to pontificate upon it in committees.
It is quite clear from every word that the DPP said that he had views about the practical application of the murder law, that he had views about the practical application of manslaughter and how they mixed together, and that at no stage did he express a view.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, members. Order!
MRS DUNNE: At no stage did he positively say, “I think the current penalty is appropriate.” He went out of his way to say: “Since I have been the DPP, no issues have arisen. If an issue arises, I will take it to the courts.”
Mr Hanson: He ruled out making commentary.
MRS DUNNE: He specifically ruled out making commentary and making a comment on whether or not a particular approach on a particular penalty was good policy. The DPP has consistently done that. I have had conversations with him, and other members are entitled to have these conversations with him. I am sure that you, Mr Rattenbury, from your conversations with the DPP, would know that he has gone out of his way to say, “I do not make commentary on policy; I will tell you if something goes wrong.” We were in debate back on 27 October and yesterday because the DPP did just that.
In the case of Creighton, I wrote to him. When I wrote to him about the sentence, he said: “I am already on the case. I have already lodged the appeal papers.” I did not hear anything from him again until the appeal was brought down. He wrote to the attorney and me in May this year to say: “I have a problem. The appeal court has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video