HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EASLING, MR T.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:41): Today in my grievance speech I wish to touch very briefly on the matter of Tom Easling. I have raised this matter previously in the house, and I know that the Attorney is considering submissions by Mr Easling in relation to his matter. However, I want to put one thing to the house today, particularly to the Minister for Families and Communities, and the simple matter is this: does the minister think it appropriate for her investigators in the Special Investigations Unit to conduct investigations and not to take notes? That is what happened to Mr Easling. He was charged with 20 counts of sexual abuse. He was acquitted of those charges and so remains, in South Australian law, innocent until proven guilty.

However, in his case, the investigators told the court in their own evidence that, on occasions, they had interviewed claimants who were either giving evidence or who might have wanted to give evidence in favour of or against Mr Easling and they did not take notes of those interviews. The reason I raise this is very simple. Regardless of the view of the house of the innocence or guilt of Mr Easling, the simple question is this: is it acceptable to this government and to the Minister for Families and Communities for her investigators to interview people and not to take notes?

We live in South Australia, not South Africa. It seems to me that the standard procedure would be that an investigator, investigating what are serious criminal matters (allegations of child sexual abuse), take notes of an interview. I raise this for the minister, because I am still waiting for an answer from her to questions I raised seven or eight weeks ago in relation to a diary note about a media plan for the arrest of Tom Easling. I have had no response, but I know that the Attorney has said publicly—and I give the Attorney credit for saying this publicly on radio—that the leaking of Tom Easling's arrest to the media was of grave concern to him as the Attorney-General and as the state's senior law officer.

The question as to whether one believes the innocence or guilt of Tom Easling is irrelevant to the question of the quality of the investigation. These investigators were not first-day constables, wet behind the ears. These officers were hand-picked by phone call, not in response to an advert. They were rung up and asked, 'Do you want to do the 20 week contract?' They were 30-year plus ex-senior police officers. Does anyone in this chamber think that it is a fluke or an accident that they did not take notes of the interview? I do not believe that.

I think that 30-year plus police officers took a deliberate decision not to take down notes of certain interviews. I have read nearly 3,000 pages of court transcript, and it is crystal clear in the transcript that the investigators took a decision not to write down notes of certain interviews. Why should the South Australian parliament accept any investigating officer's decision not to take notes of interviews so that the person being accused can have access to those notes under normal court procedures?

What motive could there be for two ex-senior police officers to make a deliberate decision not to take notes during investigations of Tom Easling? That is just one of dozens of reasons why this matter does deserve an inquiry. I put on the record for the Minister for Families and Communities: come into the house and explain to us and tell the public why it is acceptable for your investigating officers to adopt a procedure not to write down notes of interviews. The answer is: it is simply not acceptable and that is why we need an inquiry.

Time expired.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT