Legislative Council
26 August 1998 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking
the Attorney-General a question about the coronial inquiry, announced today, into the NCA
bombing.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In an earlier question in July, I
asked the Attorney about a coronial inquiry into this matter
In that question I made the observation that, from my understanding in South Australia,
the Coroner is prevented from investigating the 1994 National Crime Authority bombing by
section 26 of the Coroner's Act. This section prevents the Coroner holding an inquest
where a person has been charged with criminal proceedings unless the Attorney-General so
directs. I would be very interested to hear whether that was the wrong interpretation of
South Australian law. The other part of the question is: can the Attorney shed any light
as to why it has taken so long for the Coroner to decide to hold a coronial inquiry,
bearing in mind that the actual offence took place on 2 March 1994?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Let me deal with the second question first. I am not privy
to why the Coroner did not decide to have an inquest earlier than the intimation which I
have made today. He has been considering it for some time, particularly since the Director
of Public Prosecutions determined not to proceed with particular charges because of there
being insufficient evidence. However, I would surmise that the Coroner, seeing that there
were proceedings afoot prosecuting a defendant, seeking to have a coronial inquiry may
well have compromised the legal proceedings. It is not uncommon that the Coroner may
commence an inquiry but suspend it whilst criminal proceedings are undertaken.
In this State, the DPP having determined not to proceed with the prosecution and
subsequent investigations having occurred, it may be that the Coroner took the view that
it was now less likely to create a difficulty either for continuing police investigations
or for legal proceedings in the future, if someone should be arrested ultimately and
brought to trial, for the Coroner to undertake the inquiry would not have interfered with
either of those two matters.
So far as the honourable member's first question is concerned, my understanding is
that there was not an Attorney-General's direction required to the Coroner and that the
law does not prevent the inquest occurring while criminal proceedings are under way, but
the normal practice is not to allow an inquest to continue whilst those criminal
proceed-ings might be current. I think it should be recognised that in any coronial
inquest that will not be an attempt to solve the crime. The police investigations will
continue but the inquest is directed towards ascertaining facts and the Coroner himself
will make a decision ultimately as to the direction the inquiry will take. As I have said
in the ministerial statement, I would expect security issues would be among the issues
addressed by the Coroner.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: A supplementary question: did the Attorney have any
discussions with the Coroner about this matter at any stage?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: No, I did not personally, but the ministerial statement
indicates that there were discussions with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Director
of Public Prosecutions, the Crown Solicitor's office and the Chief Executive Officer of
the Attorney-General's Depart-ment. I did have discussions with the Chief Executive
Officer of the Attorney-General's Department. I did have discussions at some timeóI
cannot remember precisely whenówith the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as with
the Crown Solicitor.
See also Ian Gilfillan's News Releases on this issue: July 7 1998
and August
26 1998
and previous parliamentary question: 7 July 1998
Site assisted by Intramedia Design