HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EASLING, MR T.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (15:49): I wish to continue my remarks about this matter. Today, I wish to speak on inducements given to witnesses by investigators and assistance given to witnesses by government agencies. In particular, I refer to the claimant who was first interviewed in the car on 8 July where he made no allegations against Mr Easling. Then, on 10 July, he was interviewed again and five times was asked whether Mr Easling had abused him, and five times he said that Mr Easling had not abused him.

The transcript of the court case shows that the investigators made it clear to the claimant that, if he could help them, they could help him. The reason that is important is that this particular claimant's phone had been cut off, he needed food, he had a significant back rent issue and he had a significant gambling habit.

On 14 July, the claimant went to court on a charge of DUI and illegal use of a car. On the way home from court he was picked up for outstanding warrants, in other words, fines that had not been paid. So, this particular claimant had significant financial pressure. The court transcript shows that the investigators themselves, or one investigator in particular, gave this claimant cash. I am not sure whether, under the government's protocol for investigations of child sexual abuse, investigators are allowed to give potential witnesses cash. The investigators also bought the claimant a mobile phone: they were in constant contact.

Then on 26 July, the claimant and the investigators spent a significant amount of time together, some 3½ hours. During that time the investigators took this claimant to Bank SA, the Commonwealth Bank, LJ Hooker and the Department for Families and Communities and picked up a cheque. It was on that particular day that the phone was purchased. They spent something like 3½ hours together in the vehicle. There is no record of what was discussed in the vehicle on that particular day.

At the end of that 3½-hour period the claimant was dropped at the police station so that he could make a statement against Mr Easling. So, after being asked on five occasions had Mr Easling done anything to him and the answer was no, after receiving that level of assistance, that is, cash from the investigators, a new phone and assistance from the government agency, the witness changed his mind and then made allegations against Mr Easling.

Interestingly enough, that particular claimant had received no government assistance from the Department for Families and Communities between October 2000 and 2004. The reason for that was that he did not qualify because he was employed, and during all the time that he received the assistance that I have outlined to the house, he was still employed. So, on what basis did he suddenly get that assistance, other than he was a claimant or a witness against Mr Easling in a child abuse case?

My understanding is that between 26 July 2004 and 30 November, this particular claimant received $1,200 cash from the agency, he received white goods for his home, he received furniture, that is, a mattress and bed, he had the rent paid, his electricity account paid, he received cash from the investigators and his Housing Trust debt had been dealt with. So, all those matters have suddenly been dealt with in the context of him being a witness against Mr Easling.

I say that the government needs to have an investigation so that we can clarify whether the investigators put any pressure on the government agencies to offer assistance, on what basis the assistance was given, and on what basis the investigators are buying mobile phones and giving cash to witnesses in a child abuse case.

This is another area where I think this case is worthy of an investigation. I do not think it is acceptable for government investigators to be giving personal cash to witnesses in a case that they are dealing with. I certainly do not think it is right that they are travelling around for 3½ hours in a car, unrecorded and with no notes taken. Who knows what was discussed? I think there needs to be some scrutiny on why, after four years of no assistance, all of a sudden there is a great deal of assistance given to this particular claimant as soon as he became a witness in the Easling matter, and having changed his mind.

Time expired.

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