WEBVTT - Conversations 6: Crime Fighter 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:06.480 This podcast contains information and details relating to suicide. We 0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:11.840 urge anyone struggling with their emotions to contact Lifeline on 0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:19.040 thirteen eleven fourteen thirteen eleven fourteen or visit them at 0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:22.279 lifeline dot org dot au. 0:00:28.280 --> 0:00:32.200 Welcome to the sixth edition of Conversations. It's Alison Sandy 0:00:32.240 --> 0:00:34.640 here and I have Liam Bartlett. 0:00:34.720 --> 0:00:37.239 Hi, lamb hey el, how are you good to catch up? 0:00:37.479 --> 0:00:41.320 Very good? We have a very special guest today, Michael Barnes, 0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:44.440 who's the new South Wales Crime Commissioner. Michael Barnes has 0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:47.520 been Commissioner of the new South Wales Crime Commission since 0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:50.159 twenty fourth of August twenty twenty. Is that right, Rick? 0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:53.199 Prior to that, Michael was New South Wales Onmbardsman from 0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:57.080 twenty seventeen to twenty twenty. In that role, he oversaw 0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.000 the restructuring of the organization, the appointment of a new 0:01:00.240 --> 0:01:04.000 executive and the launching of a new strategic plan charting 0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:06.679 the course for the organization for the next five years. 0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:10.200 You've also been new South Wales State Coroner in January 0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.240 twenty fourteen. You're appointed being the in oral Queensland State 0:01:14.319 --> 0:01:19.319 Coroner for the previous ten years. An impressive resume there, Michael, 0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:23.479 Welcome to the Truth About Amy Conversations. Thanks Alison, thank 0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:26.880 you so much for being here today. Really, I'm just 0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:29.840 so appreciative of your time because I know how important 0:01:29.840 --> 0:01:33.080 your time is. So first of all, I guess my 0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:35.120 first question, as our listeners have heard, you have a 0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:37.640 wealth of experience, but can you please tell us a 0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.080 little bit more about your current role at the New 0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:41.360 South Wales Crime Commission. 0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:47.480 Sure the Crime Commission investigates serious and organized crime and 0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:52.040 seeks to confiscate the proceeds of crime. We collaborate with 0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:55.520 other law enforcement agencies obviously to do that, both local 0:01:55.880 --> 0:02:01.000 and national. Most of our work targets large scale drug 0:02:01.040 --> 0:02:05.360 importation and distribution and money laundering associated with that and 0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:09.160 the related violence, kidnapping, public place shootings and the like. 0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:14.000 But we also undertake the investigation of historical homicides if 0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.799 the local police forces come to the conclusion that they 0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:20.200 can't take the matter further for Thank you. 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:23.919 Well, that's quite considerable. How does this differ this sort 0:02:23.919 --> 0:02:26.839 of role, It seems quite different from what you've normally done. 0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:30.400 I've been involved investigations in one way or another since 0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:34.720 the Aboriginal Royal Commission of Actual Debts and Custody in 0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:38.160 the late nineties got me involved in investigations and from 0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:41.839 that time on I've been doing similar work at the 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:46.160 Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland, then the University of Technology 0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:50.079 at Queensland before I became coroner. So criminal investigations has 0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:54.320 been my bread and butter work since the early nineties. 0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:56.839 Obviously, I sent you, as I do everybody who comes 0:02:56.840 --> 0:03:00.800 on conversations, a bit of a precie of of the 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:05.079 truth about Amy links to certain key episodes. What were 0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:07.480 your impressions when you first delved into that. 0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:10.320 Yeah, I've listened to the three or four episodes that 0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:13.160 you sent me in and I congratulate you on the 0:03:13.200 --> 0:03:16.800 work that you and Liam have done. Looked, the first 0:03:16.840 --> 0:03:20.960 impression is what a terribly sad case a young mother 0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:25.359 devoted to her two children whose life ended so violently 0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:29.840 and so unnecessarily, and the grief that would always cause 0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:34.840 has been exacerbated by uncertainty about responsibility for the death. 0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:40.680 So the first and lasting impact is the terrible sadness 0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:43.440 for all of those involved, not the least of course 0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:46.960 Amy's children, her mother, but the community generally not knowing 0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:53.480 how this violent, horrible death came about. The other lasting 0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:59.520 impact is the unfortunately inadequate initial response of the police 0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:04.360 service to the death, the detectives who who were first 0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.680 called to the scene soon after it had occurred, the 0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:11.280 death had occurred, and the lasting impact that had on 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:17.120 the ability of investigative agencies to unpack what had occurred 0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:22.640 and make definitive findings. That's been so severely hampered by 0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:29.279 the initial mistakes. You've probably heard of investigators referring to 0:04:29.320 --> 0:04:32.440 the golden hour, the first hour after the crime scene 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:37.600 is located, is recognized as so crucial from a forensic perspective, 0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:45.640 gathering physical evidence, getting eyewitness accounts, ensuring that eyewitnesses don't 0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:51.080 intentionally otherwise corrupt each other's versions. All of those things 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:56.760 were lost because of the initial mismanagement of the evanalytical 0:04:56.839 --> 0:04:58.200 that evant to keep it neutral. 0:04:58.720 --> 0:05:01.400 As Ellison says, thanks for joining us too. It's very 0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:04.360 kind of you to give us your time and your expertise, 0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:07.240 and especially in this case, your background really makes a 0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:07.839 big difference. 0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:10.960 I think yes. And now Tim Clark is usually on 0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:13.600 these conversations he's got a trial. Actually he's had to 0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:15.760 go to I can't believe that he actually has to 0:05:15.800 --> 0:05:19.880 do other work other than this very important case. So 0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:23.400 he obviously sends his apologies. But have you come across 0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:25.680 a case like this before, Michael. 0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:29.240 Well, as you probably know, there are approximately four hundred 0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.120 homicides in Australia each year, and it can only be 0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:36.360 approximate because we don't know how many wrongly categorized as 0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:40.799 suicides or missing persons. But so let's work with four hundred. 0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:43.880 And in the vast majority of those cases, the police 0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:48.520 do a fantastic job, in many cases fairly quickly putting 0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:52.800 an accused before the courts. Frequently, because of the dynamic 0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:57.760 nature of investigations, the complex circumstances in which homicides or 0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:01.719 alleged homicides occur, there are public I've never seen a 0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:03.280 perfect investigation. 0:06:04.040 --> 0:06:05.720 And in most. 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:09.040 Of those cases, though, if there are problems, they can 0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:15.680 be remedied and the investigation brought back on track. But 0:06:16.560 --> 0:06:19.720 you're right to highlight that in a certain number of 0:06:19.880 --> 0:06:25.240 cases there are crucial errors made that caused the resolution 0:06:25.360 --> 0:06:27.960 of the matters to be very protracted and in some 0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:31.280 cases never resolved. I mean, everyone knows about the Chris 0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:35.840 Dawson case here in Sydney now got a conviction, but 0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:41.640 decades after the event. Similarly, there was a tragic case 0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:46.839 here involving a young American mathematician, Scott Johnson, who it 0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:50.279 took three inquests before we got a really strong police 0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:55.400 investigation that only last year resulted in someone pleading guilty 0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:59.400 and now serving a lengthy term of imprisonment. So yes, 0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:03.880 there are these cases. As I say, most of the 0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:07.520 time police do a great job, but from time to 0:07:07.560 --> 0:07:13.240 time mistakes are made and either someone's not charged or 0:07:13.240 --> 0:07:16.680 they are charged, and the system falls down somewhere else 0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:21.720 along the right the way, as you'd appreciate. Even when 0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:25.760 a charge is laid, because police have got what they 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.240 think is sufficient evidence, all of the other parts of 0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:30.000 the criminal justice system. 0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:32.560 Have to work appropriately. 0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:36.560 I was involved in another very sad case in New 0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:39.960 South Wales, but they had some unfortunate similarities, and that 0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:43.600 the victim was a young Aboriginal woman with young children 0:07:43.600 --> 0:07:48.040 and a devoted family who died as a result of 0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:52.320 horrific internal injuries that the two miscreants who were with 0:07:52.440 --> 0:07:56.800 a claim were the result of sexual consensual sexual activity. 0:07:57.840 --> 0:07:59.800 The cops didn't go for that. She had a blood 0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:03.280 out a whole reading way beyond which anyone could make 0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:07.720 any sorts of reasonable decisions, and the circumstances in which 0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:10.480 she was found dead on the beach, with the two 0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:14.720 individuals involved burning all her clothing and the mattress from 0:08:14.760 --> 0:08:18.000 the back of the car made it very obvious that 0:08:18.040 --> 0:08:21.400 there was more to the story the cops charged with 0:08:21.840 --> 0:08:27.640 causing the death. The DPP discontinued the charge. We run 0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:31.840 an inquested, to my mind, made it abundantly clear that 0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:35.080 the version given by the two people who were with 0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:40.040 Lynette on the day that she died weren't acceptable, couldn't 0:08:40.040 --> 0:08:44.000 have possibly been true, and therefore strongly recommended that the 0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:50.400 charges again be preferred. Despite those detailed findings, the DPP 0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:54.480 declined to do that, and only when a couple of 0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:57.480 media outlets got involved and drue attention to the case 0:08:58.440 --> 0:09:01.959 was the DPP persuaded to brief an outside external council 0:09:02.040 --> 0:09:06.000 to give advice about whether or not charges could or 0:09:06.040 --> 0:09:10.360 should be laid. That council indicator that a conviction was likely. 0:09:10.840 --> 0:09:11.480 He was correct. 0:09:11.559 --> 0:09:14.480 He was brief to then run the trial, and guilty 0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:17.839 verdicts were returned by a jury after a five day trial. 0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:20.680 They're only out for thirty two minutes before they found 0:09:20.720 --> 0:09:24.160 the men guilty and they're now thankfully serving lengthy sentences. 0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:27.640 But that's just an example of how everything, at every 0:09:27.679 --> 0:09:32.560 step along the way, problems can arise that frustrate the 0:09:32.559 --> 0:09:33.839 pursuit of justice. 0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:37.920 Is that also an example, Michael, of how DPP officers 0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:43.520 generally work. And I am generalizing here, but you know, 0:09:43.600 --> 0:09:47.280 you mentioned the brief comes back from the outside source 0:09:48.400 --> 0:09:51.320 and it says, look, we do have a pretty good 0:09:51.400 --> 0:09:54.120 chance of getting a conviction. So the DPP is then 0:09:54.200 --> 0:09:58.160 confident to move forward and then prefers the charges, and 0:09:58.200 --> 0:10:00.439 so it goes. And in that case, you know, there 0:10:00.480 --> 0:10:04.760 was a win for justice. But I get the impression 0:10:04.840 --> 0:10:08.480 very strongly, especially from the DPP here in w WA 0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:12.520 at the moment. And yeah, I'm not singling him out, 0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:17.760 and he's not an orphan, but you know, unless let's 0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:21.120 put it this way, DPPs don't like to lose, do they. 0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:23.400 They do not like to lose, And if they think 0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:25.640 they're going to matter a case that it's even got 0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:28.640 a fifty to fifty chance, they're less likely to go 0:10:28.720 --> 0:10:29.600 forward with it. 0:10:30.160 --> 0:10:35.720 That's true, and that's not necessarily unreasonable. Putting someone before 0:10:35.760 --> 0:10:40.720 the court is a serious impact on that individual. You know, 0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:44.560 being wrongly accused and then publicly tried, even if you 0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:46.720 are a critter at the end of the day, is 0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:48.520 a very serious impact. 0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:50.160 So it's appropriate. 0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:55.000 That the people making that decision do so cautiously. I 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:59.800 think the problem is that they have intangible, almost unknowable 0:10:59.840 --> 0:11:02.800 assessments they must make. Is it in the public interest, 0:11:03.160 --> 0:11:06.600 is it likely to result in a conviction? Well, sitting 0:11:06.600 --> 0:11:10.600 in the office, reading your papers, looking at what the 0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:13.720 records of interview show seems to me to be a 0:11:13.760 --> 0:11:16.760 fairly difficult way to make an assessment of how a 0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:18.920 witness is going to perform in front of front of 0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:22.319 a jury, what they will say to questions that haven't 0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:26.000 yet been asked of them, how the expert witnesses will 0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:29.760 impact upon a jury's assessment. All of those things are 0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:34.720 very difficult to know with certainty. So if, as you say, 0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:37.959 there's a fifty to fifty chance, well, how do you 0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:42.079 decide which way it goes? You'd be aware of William Blackstone, 0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:46.520 a famous English jurist who is credited with saying that 0:11:46.559 --> 0:11:50.200 the English legal system it's better that ten guilty men 0:11:50.280 --> 0:11:55.520 go free than one innocent person is convicted, and I 0:11:55.600 --> 0:11:59.600 stand beside that. I think that's extremely important. We can't 0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:02.320 have in this people being locked up, but nor can 0:12:02.360 --> 0:12:07.199 we have people who are actually guilty of crimes not 0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:11.400 being brought to account. And the problem we've gotten in 0:12:11.400 --> 0:12:14.079 the current system is if you were accused, there are 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:17.000 multiple opportunities for you to vindicate yourself, for you to 0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:21.800 negate the proceedings brought against you. You usually have a 0:12:21.800 --> 0:12:24.680 committal proceeding in which you can seek to persuade the 0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:28.160 magistrate that the matter shouldn't go further forward. Even if 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:30.840 you are committed for trial, you can make written submissions 0:12:30.840 --> 0:12:34.559 to the DPP, who will regularly listen to those submissions 0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:38.199 and decide that the matter shouldn't go to trial. If 0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:40.720 it goes to trial, you can make no case submission 0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:43.400 to the trial judge, saying there's no case for me 0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:46.240 to answer here. I shouldn't even have to go into evidence. 0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:48.600 And if you are convicted, of course you have all 0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:52.760 the appeal processes available to you. But people in the 0:12:52.800 --> 0:12:58.040 position of Amy's mother have no mechanism or process to 0:12:58.160 --> 0:13:01.959 contest the decision the DPP and the police not to 0:13:02.720 --> 0:13:07.240 bring charges. That's quite surprising when you think about our 0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:11.360 commitment to transparency and accountability. Think of an other public 0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:16.440 official whose decisions aren't reviewable in any other circumstance. There's 0:13:16.480 --> 0:13:20.000 no mechanism that you can review the decision of a DPP, 0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:24.319 even though they're making an assessment that isn't an objective, 0:13:25.080 --> 0:13:27.920 concrete decision that you can calibrate. It's not how many 0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:30.640 bricks were laid in a day, it's what will a 0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:34.480 jury think about these persons explanation for what happened. 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:37.560 Yeah, part of that is a value judgment, isn't it. 0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:39.760 I mean, there's no way of getting around that. Yes, 0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:43.600 And also you mentioned Blackstone. That's interesting because of course 0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:46.439 part of that argument is also that there is a percentage. 0:13:46.800 --> 0:13:49.040 When I said fifty to fifty, I'm not factoring in 0:13:49.480 --> 0:13:54.120 the other unknown percentage. You can ascribe whatever you like, 0:13:54.200 --> 0:13:57.280 depending on your particular moral judgment, but there has to 0:13:57.280 --> 0:14:01.760 be some sort of percentage ascribed to justice being seen. 0:14:01.600 --> 0:14:03.840 To be done, undoubtedly, even if you think. 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:07.680 It's going to go the wrong way. But can I 0:14:07.720 --> 0:14:10.280 come back to that what you're saying about Amy's mum, 0:14:10.600 --> 0:14:13.880 Amy's family, So where do they go in the system. 0:14:14.200 --> 0:14:18.000 If we assume in this case that okay, the DPP 0:14:18.160 --> 0:14:19.840 is saying, well, I haven't got enough in front of 0:14:19.840 --> 0:14:21.920 me at the moment, the police are saying, well, we've 0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:24.480 got a new team investigating, so hold the fort, we'll 0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:26.680 gather as much new evidence and then we'll put it 0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:27.320 to the DPP. 0:14:27.440 --> 0:14:27.960 Fair enough. 0:14:28.200 --> 0:14:31.120 We've talked on this conversations about Section twenty two of 0:14:31.160 --> 0:14:34.160 the DPP Act here in wa which gives the director 0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:36.640 a plenty of scope to be able to say to 0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:38.840 the police, Look, I'm not happy about this particular part 0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:41.560 about the investigation. Could you go back, please send a 0:14:41.560 --> 0:14:43.520 couple of officers out and just ask a couple more 0:14:43.560 --> 0:14:46.400 questions in this regard. So there is that potential, But 0:14:46.720 --> 0:14:48.600 let's put all that to one side, because I'm very 0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:52.480 interested in an earlier comment you made about and drawing 0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:56.200 from your experience as a coroner, those couple of cases 0:14:56.240 --> 0:15:02.000 you cited had multiple coronial inquests. Amy Wednsley's just had 0:15:02.000 --> 0:15:05.800 one at this stage. So what is the process or 0:15:05.800 --> 0:15:10.240 the avenue that Amy's family would have to have or 0:15:10.280 --> 0:15:13.160 obtain in order to get another in quest. 0:15:13.800 --> 0:15:14.200 I'm not. 0:15:15.760 --> 0:15:20.200 Intimately familiar with the West Australian legislation, but generally currents 0:15:20.320 --> 0:15:23.160 need to be persuaded. There's fresh evidence that wasn't considered 0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:25.920 at the previous inquest. It's not appropriate simply to have 0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:29.040 another inquest because someone doesn't like the outcome of the 0:15:29.080 --> 0:15:32.160 first inquest, so they would need to be able to 0:15:32.160 --> 0:15:34.640 persuade the current There was fresh evidence that hadn't been 0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:39.520 considered at the inquest that's already been completed, that could 0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:43.720 lead to a different outcome. And something that strikes me 0:15:43.720 --> 0:15:47.120 in this case, it's and I said, I'm not familiar 0:15:47.160 --> 0:15:49.600 with all of the evidence. I haven't read all of 0:15:49.640 --> 0:15:53.080 the exhibits, but I haven't seen any reference to expert 0:15:53.200 --> 0:15:59.200 suicide ology one. It is a very well renowned homicide detective. 0:15:59.240 --> 0:16:05.200 On AUF interview'd mentioned how he was surprised by the circumstances, 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:09.000 alleged that he'd never seen a suicide when where a 0:16:09.040 --> 0:16:12.640 young woman had shot herself in such an awkward position 0:16:12.760 --> 0:16:16.280 and such a difficult circumstance, When had she been inclined 0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:19.120 to do that? There were other more convenient ways that 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:23.040 should have been done. And Ronzo wit As he said 0:16:23.320 --> 0:16:26.000 he's looked at a thousand cases. There are experts have 0:16:26.040 --> 0:16:29.800 looked at tens and hundreds of thousands of suicides. They 0:16:29.880 --> 0:16:34.240 undertake what they call psychological autopsy, so look at the 0:16:34.400 --> 0:16:38.320 victimology of the person and the circumstances of the death, 0:16:38.320 --> 0:16:41.720 and can offer expert advice about whether people do ever 0:16:41.800 --> 0:16:44.640 kill themselves in this way. The Scott Johnson matter I 0:16:44.680 --> 0:16:48.320 mentioned before the police wrote it off as a suicide 0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:52.680 in I think about two weeks. He was found naked 0:16:52.720 --> 0:16:55.840 at the bottom of a cliff, his clothes neatly folded 0:16:56.720 --> 0:16:59.760 at the top of the cliff. It was easy for 0:16:59.840 --> 0:17:03.760 US sociologists to say that people don't like themselves to 0:17:03.800 --> 0:17:06.800 be found in an undignified manner, even though they know 0:17:06.960 --> 0:17:08.919 they're going to be dead, so you don't take your 0:17:08.920 --> 0:17:13.520 clothes off before you jump to your death. That sort 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:16.480 of expert evidence doesn't seem to have been brought to 0:17:16.520 --> 0:17:18.679 bear in this case. 0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:22.640 But Michael is expert evidence, fresh evidence in that category. 0:17:22.680 --> 0:17:24.280 Does that fall into it does? 0:17:24.440 --> 0:17:25.800 Certainly? I can't see why. 0:17:25.920 --> 0:17:28.360 I mean, certainly it's the way you would have heard 0:17:28.359 --> 0:17:32.200 about the foal Big case here in Sydney, a woman 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:35.560 who was wrongfully convicted, it turns out, of murdering her 0:17:35.600 --> 0:17:40.119 three children expert scientific evidence in that case caused it 0:17:40.119 --> 0:17:41.160 to be re examined. 0:17:41.440 --> 0:17:44.040 Yeah, okay, So in this case, does that come from 0:17:44.040 --> 0:17:46.840 the police, what does that come from the Attorney General's 0:17:46.880 --> 0:17:48.800 office or how does that happen? 0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:49.119 Do you know? 0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:53.760 Usually folbig case came through the attorney's office. He the 0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:58.120 attorney caused a re examination, a commission of inquiry into 0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:03.240 the circumstances of her can that received the scientific evidence 0:18:03.720 --> 0:18:07.080 and produced a report saying that the conviction was unsafe. 0:18:07.200 --> 0:18:10.680 It's interesting that you should say that because we've obviously 0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:13.200 called on the Attorney general. The family has I should say, 0:18:13.400 --> 0:18:17.000 called on the Attorney General to ensure that the processes 0:18:17.840 --> 0:18:20.800 occur here. And it's something that we talked about and 0:18:20.840 --> 0:18:23.640 I mentioned that I'd ask you about. Is the separation 0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:27.320 of powers right? What are your thoughts on intervention from 0:18:27.400 --> 0:18:30.720 I mean our attorney, the WA Attorney General seems to 0:18:30.720 --> 0:18:33.120 think that there is no scope for him to intervene. 0:18:33.280 --> 0:18:34.000 What are your thoughts? 0:18:34.520 --> 0:18:36.920 I am hesitant and cautious about that. 0:18:37.320 --> 0:18:40.920 We've set up independent offices of the DPP to get 0:18:40.920 --> 0:18:47.040 politics out of those decisions. You can imagine, individual crimes 0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:52.719 can often inflame public passion and if I was the 0:18:52.760 --> 0:18:55.760 object or subject of that public passion, I'd want a 0:18:55.920 --> 0:18:59.800 DPP between me and the lynch mob rather than a politician. 0:19:00.320 --> 0:19:04.440 So I think bringing politicians into these decisions is unlikely 0:19:04.600 --> 0:19:08.800 to be helpful. I'm more inclined to think the mechanism 0:19:09.119 --> 0:19:13.120 referred to before, a mechanism to review decisions of the DPP, 0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:16.800 is preferable to getting politicians to buy into it once 0:19:16.840 --> 0:19:21.080 they start doing deciding who should be prosecuted, or giving 0:19:21.080 --> 0:19:24.600 instructions or recommendations to the EVP. I think there is 0:19:24.640 --> 0:19:25.879 a real danger. 0:19:25.720 --> 0:19:28.879 In the absence of that though. We don't have that 0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:34.840 mechanism in place. So what then can the family do? 0:19:35.200 --> 0:19:39.640 Can they refer it to? You know, does your Crime 0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:42.399 Commission looking to these sorts of things, for example in 0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:43.119 New South Wales? 0:19:43.440 --> 0:19:44.000 Yeah, we do. 0:19:44.840 --> 0:19:49.240 In New South Wales we review historic homicides and provide 0:19:49.240 --> 0:19:52.400 opinion and advice, and the police may do that when 0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:58.480 they think that our powers might assist in that regard. 0:19:59.480 --> 0:20:02.320 I don't know the jurisdiction of the Triple C in 0:20:02.359 --> 0:20:06.520 Western Australia, whether they have a similar jurisdiction or not. 0:20:07.200 --> 0:20:09.199 I mean, the difficulty you've got at the moment is 0:20:09.200 --> 0:20:12.119 that the police and the DPP are lined up in 0:20:12.200 --> 0:20:16.760 saying there isn't sufficient evidence. The police can obviously prefer 0:20:16.880 --> 0:20:21.240 charges without the DPP's concurrence, but they like the assurance 0:20:21.320 --> 0:20:25.960 that the DPP's advice will give them. The DPP, as 0:20:26.040 --> 0:20:29.520 Lamb says, doesn't like running and losing cases and thinks 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.960 they're in a position to make a water type assessment 0:20:32.960 --> 0:20:37.400 of the assessment of the likely outcome. I think that's 0:20:37.520 --> 0:20:40.320 questionable in complex cases like this. 0:20:40.520 --> 0:20:44.280 But the DPP has also admitted Michael to Amy's family 0:20:44.359 --> 0:20:48.720 that they haven't looked at the case since twenty nineteen. 0:20:49.800 --> 0:20:53.480 You know, I mean it just if you were one 0:20:53.560 --> 0:20:56.080 of the family members, you'd be so frustrated it would 0:20:56.080 --> 0:20:59.520 be unbelievable. Can we just go back to what you 0:20:59.560 --> 0:21:03.959 were talking about, the golden hour? You know that that 0:21:04.240 --> 0:21:10.959 hour after a scene is discovered and the way we 0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:14.000 could because we were touching on fresh evidence. And I'm 0:21:14.040 --> 0:21:18.880 sort of intrigued about whether or not it does evidence 0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:24.520 already presented but are judged to be not given enough weight, 0:21:24.720 --> 0:21:28.439 if I can put it that way, does that also count? 0:21:28.640 --> 0:21:33.080 And by that, let me explain, I'm and I'm fascinated 0:21:33.119 --> 0:21:35.240 to hear your comments on this, because you've heard so 0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:38.280 many cases as a coroner. One thing that really struck 0:21:38.359 --> 0:21:43.600 me in that coronial inquest that Amy's family had was 0:21:43.640 --> 0:21:47.919 the lack of weight given to the evidence of the 0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:51.119 three constables who were first on the scene in that 0:21:51.200 --> 0:21:58.960 golden hour, Constable Blandford, Constable Dixon, Senior Constable Roberts. So 0:21:59.040 --> 0:22:02.640 they all in their own way, very strongly, very explicitly 0:22:02.680 --> 0:22:07.760 expressed suspicion, high levels of suspicion, and all their notes, 0:22:08.480 --> 0:22:14.120 those contemporaneous notes of that moment also backed up that judgment. 0:22:14.160 --> 0:22:16.240 They all got on the standard. They all repeated the 0:22:16.280 --> 0:22:20.840 same thing years later. Now, I was flabbagasted that the 0:22:20.920 --> 0:22:26.520 coroner didn't give that more weight, especially considering as we 0:22:26.600 --> 0:22:29.879 know now that the two detectives who were found to 0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:33.280 be negligent in their duty when they turned up had 0:22:33.359 --> 0:22:36.320 less than an a four page of notes between the 0:22:36.359 --> 0:22:40.920 two of them, which was just unfathomable. Do you see 0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:45.160 what I'm getting out here? I mean, I'm just amazed 0:22:45.280 --> 0:22:50.760 that that's not a higher ratio in the coroner's findings. 0:22:50.840 --> 0:22:53.920 Yeah, I mean, the officers who turned up initially could 0:22:54.000 --> 0:22:57.880 only give their opinion about what they saw. I don't 0:22:57.920 --> 0:23:01.879 think they can swear to theultimate issue, namely who caused 0:23:01.880 --> 0:23:06.760 the death. They expressed their concerns and suspicions, and clearly 0:23:06.800 --> 0:23:09.160 they should have been acted on by the detectives who 0:23:09.160 --> 0:23:14.040 turned up. Principally, there should have been a proper forensic 0:23:14.119 --> 0:23:18.240 examination of the scene, and most particularly the two people 0:23:18.600 --> 0:23:21.320 or three were not sure who were present when the 0:23:21.359 --> 0:23:25.240 death occurred should have been grilled. They should have been 0:23:25.280 --> 0:23:30.280 exhaustively interviewed, kept apart until that had occurred. We might 0:23:30.320 --> 0:23:33.280 then be in a position to be more confident. The 0:23:33.359 --> 0:23:37.040 other expert, the person who gave evidence about whether it 0:23:37.119 --> 0:23:40.760 was possible for a young woman to hold a gun 0:23:40.800 --> 0:23:44.720 in such an awkward and difficult position, their evidence seemed 0:23:44.760 --> 0:23:47.960 to also be discounted to some extent, which surprised me. 0:23:48.320 --> 0:23:51.720 And again I'm confident. I used to be an adjunct 0:23:51.720 --> 0:23:55.480 professor at the Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention. 0:23:56.119 --> 0:24:02.920 I know people there will talk very convincingly about circumstances 0:24:02.920 --> 0:24:06.159 in which people choose to take their own life, about 0:24:06.200 --> 0:24:09.000 how they tend to try and get themselves somewhere secure 0:24:09.040 --> 0:24:12.800 and comfortable. They don't try and hold up a shotgun 0:24:12.840 --> 0:24:16.720 with one hand and hope they managed to hit the 0:24:16.800 --> 0:24:20.199 right part of their body. It just seems surprising that 0:24:20.320 --> 0:24:23.040 expertise of that sort wasn't brought to bear. 0:24:23.640 --> 0:24:28.200 Well, two two biomechanical experts, not just one, both said 0:24:28.200 --> 0:24:30.719 the same thing in one in Perth and one in Sydney. 0:24:31.160 --> 0:24:35.679 And now the American expert too. It's pretty amazing, isn't it. 0:24:35.880 --> 0:24:38.080 Yeah, I mean, is it one of those things though? 0:24:38.119 --> 0:24:41.600 I mean, these law, as you know, is so subjective, right, 0:24:42.040 --> 0:24:44.639 there's so many you know, the interpretation. I mean to 0:24:44.800 --> 0:24:48.000 us obviously having worked on this, we think if Dawson's 0:24:48.040 --> 0:24:50.440