HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FULL COURT PETITIONS

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:57): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General questions about petitions for referral to the Full Court.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Recently, I submitted two freedom of information requests to the Attorney-General's Department seeking details about the number of petitions for referral to the Full Court received by the Attorney-General and the number actually referred. I did so because I have long had the suspicion that successive South Australian attorneys-general have never—or at least not in living memory—used the discretion afforded to them by section 369(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 to refer a case of suspected wrongful conviction back to the Full Court for appeal.

As I have previously detailed, this is the only means by which a person who has suffered a miscarriage of justice and has exercised their appeal rights—which does occur, despite this government's reluctance to acknowledge it—is able to get back before the Full Court to appeal their conviction. The only case I know of where the Governor has exercised his discretion is the case of Mr Ted Splatt, who was wrongfully convicted of the murder of Ms Rosa Simper in 1978, and this was only after seven long years of incarceration and a royal commission lasting 196 days. Further, Mr Splatt was pardoned by the Governor and not acquitted by the Full Court, as I believe was detailed last week on Channel 7's Today Tonight.

Earlier this week my office was contacted by the responsible FOI officer, who informed me that, as the Attorney-General's office and department respectively do not keep such records, a manual search would be required and as such the FOI requests will cost thousands and thousands of dollars to complete. I find this absurd. Here we have the Attorney-General exercising a serious quasi-judicial function and not even bothering to keep records of the number of petitions received, let alone those acted upon. This makes me think that this is why this Attorney-General and his predecessor are able to convince themselves that we do not have miscarriages of justice in South Australia. For this reason, I ask the Attorney-General to inquire and answer the following questions:

1. How many petitions have been received by the Attorney-General, either directly from the petitioner or via the Governor, in the preceding 20 years?

2. On what date were these petitions received, and on what date did the Governor or the Attorney-General respond to the petitions?

3. Has a South Australian attorney-general ever exercised the discretion in section 369(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to refer a case to the Full Court for appeal and, if so, when did this last occur?

4. Assuming it has occurred, how many cases have been referred to the Full Court since 1935 in accordance with section 369(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and, if known, what were the offences for which the petitioners were convicted and sought relief and the full case citation of the subsequent Full Court appeal?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for her important questions and will refer them to the Attorney-General in another place and bring back a response.

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