Free Content Management

DPP Contradicts Opinion Of Predecessor What Now For Shreddergate Apologists? By Bruce Grundy and Susann Kovacs (18 August 2003) Information just obtained by The Justice Project has revealed that during a court hearing earlier this year the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions contradicted and repudiated the controversial views of a former head of that Office, of no less than three Chairmen of the former Criminal Justice Commission, of the former head of the CJC's complaints division and of a currently serving magistrate. Former head of the Office of the DPP Royce Miller QC, CJC Chairmen Butler, Clair and O'Regan, former head of that organisation's complaints division (and now State Coroner), Michael Barnes, and magistrate, Noel Nunan have all said, or have supported the view, that a charge of destroying evidence could be sustained against a person only if a court action was under way at the time potential evidence was destroyed. However, at the committal hearing in March of a man charged with either destroying evidence or attempting to pervert the course of justice, the prosecutor from the Office of the DPP told magistrate Bevan Manthey that the offences involved in the case could be committed even if no court action was under way at the time material likely to be used in evidence was destroyed. For over a decade government agencies and authorities in Queensland have maintained the contrary view. This position has been used consistently for 13 years to excuse the actions of a range of public servants and politicians who destroyed material required for a court action, because, it was said, no such action had actually been commenced at the time of the destruction. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case against a Baptist minister in March, the prosecutor from the Office of the DPP told the court a judicial proceeding did not have to be on foot for a charge of destroying evidence to succeed. "It is sufficient that an act has a tendency to frustrate or deflect a prosecution which the accused contemplates may possibly be instituted, even though that possibility has not been considered by the police," the prosecutor told the court. The minister was committed to stand trial. However, no charges were ever laid against those who destroyed a large collection of documents gathered by an inquiry into what was going on in a Brisbane youth detention centre in 1990, even though those involved (senior public servants and politicians) were aware the material was required for court action. Details of the issues raised above can be found at: Officials Can Still Be Charged, Officials Could Have Been Charged, and Action Against Shredders Reconsidered. In yet another twist in this long-running saga, an application by The Justice Project to the Magistrates Court registrar in April to gain access to the transcript of the committal hearing mentioned above was rejected by the Acting Registrar. In response to the application under s 154 of the Justices Act he said The Justice Project did not have "sufficient interest" in the matter and the application was also rejetced because "a suppression order was in force for the entirety of the committal proceedings". Material now obtained by The Justice Project shows that, in fact, a suppression order was not in force for the entirety of the proceedings. One that had been in force for some of the hearing was lifted before the proceedings closed. In response to a submission from the prosecution, Magistrate Bevan Manthey said: "The suppression order is lifted." In addition, while suppression orders may constrain publication of information covered by such orders, they do not prevent public access to the courts or to court records. Top 1295 page visits Content Management Software 2008