HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

JUDICIAL SENTENCING

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:44): In parliament yesterday I was pleased to hear the Hon. Dennis Hood's apology to Judge Marie Shaw for remarks the member made both inside and outside parliament on 22 November last year. Immediately after he made those remarks in parliament, I had suggested that the government had prior knowledge of them and had failed to defend the integrity of the judge. I am now assured that the government did not have that knowledge and, therefore, I am happy to withdraw those imputations. On 22 November the Hon. Mr Hood had said:

Freedom of information data received by Family First shows that Judge Shaw did not sentence any persons charged with rape or unlawful sexual intercourse to prison last year despite hearing 12 cases charged with those offences.

The member went on to describe them as 'deplorable sentencing statistics'. I was in the chamber when those words were uttered and they surprised and, I suppose, rather shocked me. Rape is one of the most serious crimes in the criminal calendar and invariably attracts a sentence of imprisonment, and for any judge to release every offender was a matter of serious concern. If I had not personally been aware of the integrity of the particular judge, my confidence in her would have been seriously compromised.

I quite appreciate that the words spoken were literally true—namely, that the judge had heard 12 cases and did not sentence any of those accused to imprisonment. However, the clear implication of the statement was that she had 'failed'—and that was the word used by the honourable member—to imprison any of the offenders when she had had an opportunity to do so. Why otherwise would the statistics have been described as 'deplorable'? Everyone knows that literal truth can often be misleading. A person could say that he had never been found guilty of any offence and may be speaking the truth, but the actual fact of the matter could be that he had pleaded guilty to 20 offences, which means that he had not been found guilty. So, an entirely wrong impression can be obtained.

I do not suggest that the honourable member deliberately suppressed this information, because in an earlier speech to parliament on 23 October 2007 in relation to the Victims of Crime bill he specifically mentioned that the 12 rape and unlawful sexual intercourse cases of a particular judge (whom he did not name) had resulted in 'six acquittals and six prosecution withdrawals'. So, the honourable member was not disguising that fact and was clearly aware of it; however, using it in the context he did created an entirely wrong impression for those in the chamber as well as for those outside, and I do not believe he should have attacked the judge on the ground of her failure to do something that she could not have done.

The member also based his attack on the judge's sentencing of an offender, Christopher Niehus, who was given a suspended sentence on the day of those remarks. However, the honourable member's outline of the facts of that case to the parliament, which were quite detailed, were not (as I read the transcripts of those sentencing remarks) the same as the facts upon which the judge was required to sentence that particular offender. I note that the DPP has not appealed against the judge's decision in that matter.

I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the member's dissatisfaction with the general level of penalties handed down in the criminal courts and the frustration he shares with many victims. He has been running a persistent campaign, as he is entirely entitled to, and I encourage him to do it. However, the intention of my remarks this afternoon are to remind all members, myself included, of the need to ensure that information provided to the parliament is fair and accurate—otherwise, the credibility not only of the member concerned but also the parliament itself will be compromised. This is especially true where remarks touch upon the reputation of a particular individual.

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