Promoting people's rights and civil liberties. It is non-party political and independent of other organisations.
CCC prosecuting authority confuses

CCC prosecuting authority confuses

I have observed with interest since the Corruption and Crime Commission of WA has been in operation that it has brought down adverse findings against many people. On the face of it, it seems generally that’s where its authority stops. There seems to be no compulsion or law that requires the appropriate authority to launch a prosecution, in consideration of the CCC adverse findings, so that if found guilty an appropriate record of conviction and punishment is recorded.

If it is the case that there is no compulsion for the appropriate authority to prosecute, then the CCC’s role generally in shaming and naming the individual concerned, I suggest, is a very hollow bottom line exercise. I am pleased however, in this naming and shaming exercise, that the aggrieved have a right to appeal to the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC – often people who appeal to the Parliamentary Inspector have the adverse findings reversed so far as the public record is concerned. I am amazed at the CCC’s anger when its adverse findings are reversed, and its audacity by refusing to agree with the Parliamentary Inspector’s findings.

But I realise now that it seems that the CCC has the power to launch criminal prosecutions against people it makes adverse findings against. If the Legislation allows the CCC to answer critics like myself, could the CCC explain why no criminal prosecution has been made against persons who are responsible for having Andrew Mallard – now found to have been innocent – convicted and the sufferer of 12 years’ imprisonment for a crime he did not commit and a crime I suggest those concerned should have known he did not commit.

– Brian G Tennant, Subiaco, WA, CLA member and law reform campaigner, letter to The Editor, The Australian, 18 Jan 09

Leave a Reply

Translate »