Page 5501 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Then, when asked to give his views on the proposed change to the murder provision, he began with the caveat:
Again, I start with a caveat: it is not for me to advise the government or the Assembly on what the law should be, and these are matters of public policy. I see my role more as outlining the relevant considerations, particularly as they have an effect on my office.
Under questioning from Mr Rattenbury, he was asked:
The question that has arisen in committee discussions this morning, to some extent, is: is the issue one of the definition of the offence or is the issue more that we have a problem of inadequate penalty? Does the DPP have a view on that?
Mr White said:
With respect, that is conflating two issues. Cassidy is a good example of a very severe penalty for manslaughter. I think Cassidy was sentenced to 15 years, with 10 years on the bottom, from memory. But sentences for manslaughter can range from that sort of range right down to, in some instances, bonds and immediate release without imprisonment, depending on the circumstances of the manslaughter.
And this is where Mr Corbell has his defence. He says that the DPP said there is plenty of flexibility available to sentencing judges in relation to sentences for both manslaughter and murder. That is his defence. He claims the DPP said something when the DPP did not say it. Those are the facts. The DPP went out of his way to say that it was not his role to give that kind of advice and he was not going to offer a view about the appropriateness of the penalties.
But Mr Corbell, because he could not sustain his argument on its own, decided to conscript the DPP to his views. We believe that is inappropriate. We believe if you are going to claim that a public officer, a public official, a senior public official such as the DPP, has said something, it should be true. It should be based on facts, not on your interpretation of what he may have said. You need to base it on the facts.
The facts are that the DPP did not say it. He did not say that the current penalty is appropriate. Nowhere can Mr Corbell point to it. And it is therefore highly inappropriate and misleading for Mr Corbell to get up and claim that it is. He has shown no respect to the DPP. He has shown no respect to the Assembly. He has shown no respect to the community. He should therefore be censured.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.32): I thank Ms Hunter for allowing me to go prior to her in the normal rotation. There are two issues at play in this motion. One is the claim by those opposite that the Attorney-General has, as it were, misrepresented the statements by the DPP. Indeed, Mr Seselja has just said, “Don’t claim the DPP has said something when he didn’t.” He said he has conscripted the DPP to his view. He went on then to say: “If you’re going to quote a public figure, it should be true. This is no respect to the DPP.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video