In reply to Hon. IAN GILFILLAN (4 June).
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I provide the following responses:
Question 1.
The issue raised by the complaint was the significance or otherwise
of the fact that the statement of one of the persons present immediately
after the NCA bombing differed in some minor respects from those of the
other three persons present, one of whom was the complainant. It was never
in dispute that the statements differed. The issue was whether there was
any significance in that difference.
If the other two officers had been interviewed and confirmed
their original statements, the issued would have remained. Had they resiled
from their statements, the issue would have dissolved.
The Police Complaints Authority chose to investigate the issue.
Having done so, it was readily apparent that there was no sinister significance
in the differences that existed. They were typical of the differences commonly
found in the various statements of independent witnesses.
It would have been quite improper for the original investigators
to have done that which the honourable member suggests and re-interview
earlier witnesses about the detail of a statement obtained later in an
investigation.
Question 2.
This question assumes that the `record of the Police Complaints
Authority` is called into question. I do not accept that assumption.
Question 3.
There is nothing I wish to add to the answer I have already given.
|
|