HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EASLING, MR T.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:18): I wish to continue my remarks about Tom Easling. On Tuesday, I raised the question of whether it was acceptable to the minister and the government for interviews to be conducted without notes being taken. Yesterday, in question time, I asked the minister if it was acceptable to the government to have government investigators conducting interviews where the tape-recorder was only turned on for part of the interview. The minister, in her answer, went nowhere near the question and so the parliament and the public are not informed as to what the government view is in relation to that question.

The reason I raise the question is that, in the Easling matter, the court transcript is very clear: not one witness but a number of the government's own witnesses make the claim that the investigators conducted interviews with the claimants off-tape—that is, without the tape-recorder being on. While the tape recorder was not on they talked about matters that were central to the Tom Easling case.

They raised, off tape, that they were investigating alleged sexual abuse. They raised, off tape, Tom Easling's name. They raised, off tape, the issue of massages. They raised, off tape, the issue of alcohol. They raised, off tape, the issue of cigarettes. In some interviews they raised, off tape, the issue of Kangaroo Island. These matters are all central to the prosecution of Mr Easling, of which, of course, he was totally acquitted.

I raise for the parliament and the minister's consideration this question—and she can come in at any time and make a ministerial statement and clarify this for the parliament—why did the government investigators adopt that style of investigation? Why is it acceptable to the government to have that style of investigation? These were 30-year plus experienced ex-police officers, supposedly highly trained. Why have they made a deliberate decision to conduct interviews with the alleged victims—I call them claimants—who are going to be witnesses in the case? Why have they chosen to conduct those interviews, in part, off tape?

Some of these interviews off tape went for an hour and a half: an hour and a half discussion between the investigators and alleged victims off tape, where they are talking about Easling, massage, alcohol and sexual abuse. That has to raise some serious questions about the integrity of the investigation.

A classic question in the trial was this one: how long does it take to turn on a tape recorder? As an investigator, why would you not go in and tape record the whole interview? Why would you not do that? It makes no sense. I think this whole investigation—and my views about the investigation are well known—deserves an inquiry. I do not think the parliament, or the government, should accept an 'ends justifies the means' approach to the investigation. If you are going to be charged with these offences, the investigation needs to be proper.

The defence, in opening the case at trial, right up front, put forward that they would prove considerable doubt about the investigation and the likelihood of contamination by the investigators due to the investigation process. They put that right up front, and that is exactly what they proved in the case: enough doubt. They showed enough doubt about the investigation process that it contaminated the case.

Regardless of what people think of Easling's innocence or guilt, the courts acquitted him. The investigation was shocking and it needs an inquiry. I invite the minister to come in and answer yesterday's question.

Time expired.

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