Ministerial Statement

EASLING, MR T.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (10:32): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On 23 November 2007 Thomas Frank Easling was acquitted by a District Court jury of multiple charges of indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed on youths who had been placed in his care when he was a registered foster carer. Since February 2008 parliament has heard calls for a royal commission or other commission of inquiry to inquire into the investigation and prosecution of criminal charges against Mr Easling.

By letter dated 25 August 2008, Mr Easling's solicitors, Iles Selley, wrote to me on behalf of Mr Easling to provide a detailed post-trial written submission seeking an inquiry into 'the investigation conducted by the Special Investigations Unit of the Department for Families and Communities and his subsequent prosecution'. This was a comprehensive submission drafted by Mr Easling, Mr Selley and Mr J.D. Edwardson QC about why Mr Easling considered an inquiry was warranted. The submission encapsulated all matters of complaint.

In response to this letter and the calls for an independent inquiry, I instructed the Crown Solicitor to provide me with advice about Mr Easling's allegations about the probity of an investigation of him and about the subsequent unsuccessful prosecution of him for child sex offences. This request was made to the Crown Solicitor on 3 October 2008.

To advise sensibly the Crown Solicitor has had to review the transcript, summing up and Mr Easling's submission in detail. I have now received the report from the Crown Solicitor on his review of Mr Easling's trial, which I tabled today.

I received the report of the Crown Solicitor about the review of Mr Easling's trial on Friday. 27 November 2009. In his report on the review conducted, the Crown Solicitor has advised that, in his opinion:

Neither the trial evidence nor the submission from Mr Easling's lawyers disclose any evidence that the investigation of the allegations against Mr Easling was conducted with bias or impropriety.

Neither the trial evidence nor the submissions from Mr Easling's lawyers disclose any evidence that the evidence of any complainant was tainted by contamination or collusion. The trial judge also closely considered this issue and rejected it, describing it as 'mere conjecture'.

There was a legitimate case to answer against Mr Easling, comprising eight independent complainants out of a total of 60 spoken to who were placed with Mr Easling, each independently alleging that they were abused. Also, both the committing magistrate and the trial judge independently found a case to answer.

These complainants, being placements, were primarily street kids, some who had been in trouble, some who had problems, some of whom used drugs. They alleged abuse at the hands of Mr Easling occurring some years before the trial in circumstances where most said they had been trying to forget the abuse. There were some inconsistencies in some of their evidence as to some matters. These were legitimate issues as to the credibility of witnesses of this type. They were for the jury to consider, but none was such as to indicate that the complainants were necessarily untruthful about the charged events or that they should not have formed the basis of a legitimate prosecution.

It was appropriate to prosecute Mr Easling.

The prosecution was conducted ethically, properly and appropriately.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Speaker, this is an important matter and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition not to interject out of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is an important question, I agree. I continue:

The acquittal of Mr Easling means that the jury had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. It does not necessarily connote any adverse conclusions as to the conduct of the investigation or the conduct of the prosecution.

The acquittal of Mr Easling means that he remains fully entitled to the presumption of innocence. If some think that the report detracts from Mr Easling's innocence and has the effect of retrying Mr Easling, it plainly does not do so. An objective assessment of the trial evidence was unavoidable because Mr Easling and his supporters demanded a review and inquiry, and attacked the strength of the case against him.

Neither the trial evidence nor the submissions of Mr Easling's lawyers provide any basis for any further inquiry into the objectivity or propriety of the investigation, the decision to prosecute or the conduct of the prosecution.

The Crown Solicitor came to these conclusions after personally undertaking the task of reviewing 2,665 pages of evidence and summing up, and the 59 pages of complaints made by Mr Easling's lawyers. He has provided a very detailed review and advice. This was done so that the issues would receive the most senior and careful legal consideration available to government, and I plead with those who would express an opinion about this case to do what the journalists and the members of parliament have not done—and that is, read the entire case, read this report.

In answering the criticisms made by Mr Easling's lawyers that the prosecution case had no credibility owing to a corrupted investigation and should never have been prosecuted, the advice and, in particular, the review closely analyses the trial itself and states that there was a fair investigation and a strong case against Mr Easling. The review articulates aspects of the strength, and weakness, of the prosecution case together with the strength, and some weaknesses, of Mr Easling's case to illustrate that one cannot conclude that the prosecution case had no credibility as against the case proffered by Mr Easling, contrary to the assertions of Mr Easling's lawyer, and hence that there is no basis for any further inquiry, as has been requested by Mr Easling, his lawyers and the member for Davenport.

This report highlights some truths about Mr Easling's trial, including some tactical advantages that the defence achieved—not always legitimately—and disadvantages that the prosecution suffered during the trial. The report raises these matters to shed light upon claims that the investigation and prosecution of Mr Easling were unwarranted.

The Crown Solicitor has made it plain, in his report on his review of these claims, that both investigation and the prosecution of Mr Easling were appropriate and properly conducted. This report demonstrates that Mr Easling legitimately had a case to answer and, having faced trial, was acquitted by a jury who had reasonable doubt. As expected in our criminal justice system, Mr Easling had the opportunity to face his accusers in court and make his defence. He received the full benefit of the system. I move:

That the 'Review of the Easling Trial' report be published pursuant to section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005.

Motion carried.