House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Easling, Mr T. EASLING, MR T. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly Croydon The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (15:41): My interjections, which were being shouted down by the opposition, were in fact supporting the Leader of the Opposition because— An honourable member House of Assembly An honourable member: What's the point of order? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. He is doing his grievance. The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —Attorney-General Rowe, in the Playford government, attained his legal qualification in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Davenport called for an inquiry into the prosecution of Thomas Easling. He received one. It was a report running to 117 pages by the Crown Solicitor, Simon Stretton, entitled 'Review of the Easling Trial'. It seems to be the report that Today Tonight will not report and that TheIndependent Weekly and its successor will not report and that the member for Davenport never refers to. Here are its conclusions: Neither the trial evidence nor the submissions 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 'merely 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 had problems, some who had had contact with drugs. They alleged abuse at the hands of Mr Easling occurring some years prior to the trial in circumstances where most said that they had been trying to forget the abuse. As such, 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 were such as to indicate that the complainants were necessarily untruthful in relation to 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. 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— and I certainly endorse that conclusion also. The report continues: Neither the trial evidence or 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. I turn to page 108 of the report, which reads: On close analysis none of these complainants had an established motive to lie against Mr Easling, in fact some said that apart from the inappropriate sexual activity they quite liked him and would prefer not to have had to have had to give evidence against him. One complainant's evidence was specifically corroborated by his social worker who, on arriving at Mr Easling's house, unexpectedly early, found the complainant in Mr Easling's bed.⁶²⁵ Footnote ⁶²⁵: Investigator Boydon's evidence. This contradicted Mr Easling's evidence as to the events of the morning. It is interesting that the member for Davenport says there is no document that sustains this allegation. Indeed, there is a richness of documents, and I refer to the Crown Solicitor's report at pages 27, 40 and 47: Each of the complainants was a child in need of foster care and as such many were street kids, some runaways, some with a range of problems such as alcohol and drugs and some who had been in contact with the law.