Roseanne Catt Conviction
Page: 15624
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General currently have new evidence before him relating to the case of Roseanne Catt? Does that evidence present a strong case that Roseanne Catt has been wrongfully convicted? Will the Attorney General act to ensure that justice has been done in this case?
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: The upper House Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population has spoken to Roseanne Catt, and considered matters relating to her case. Therefore, the question relates to proceedings before the committee.
The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: I am the chairman of that committee. It is true that we have conferred with the inmate known as Roseanne Catt. However, the committee is taking absolutely no action about any of the submissions she has made. The committee interviewed her in reference to the construction of the women's prison. Clearly any evidence she has given will no longer be used by the committee. I see absolutely no interference in the committee's activities by the question asked by Ms Lee Rhiannon.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Further to the point of order: I hate to disagree with the Chairman, but the final report has not been seen by the members of the committee. We are certainly not in a position to know that this matter might not be in the report. When we interviewed the person in question, her evidence related to an enormous number of matters that had nothing to do with the building of a new women's prison but with a great deal of matters relating to prisons.
The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: None of the remarks made by Roseanne Catt as a witness to the committee had anything to do with our terms of reference.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods suggested that the committee has no idea what is in the final report. I suggest that the committee has a pretty good idea what is in the final report. That is what its deliberations were all about. The committee will not report on the state of Roseanne Catt's personal situation; thus, the question relating to her situation is in order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Questions may be put to the Chair of a committee that relate to the activities of a committee but the question must not attempt to interfere with the committee's work or anticipate its report. However, questions relating to public affairs may be put to Ministers, and as the question is addressed to the Attorney General, I rule there is no point of order and that the question is in order.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Attorney General advises me that he has received correspondence this morning by facsimile from a solicitor acting on behalf of Roseanne Catt that refers to a submission seeking a review of her previous conviction. I am told that the letter of this morning attached a further document that forms part of the general submission that the matter be reviewed pursuant to part 13A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Attorney advises me that this material will be the subject of advice about whether a review pursuant to part 13A of the Crimes Act should ensue. I understand that Ms Lee Rhiannon informed the Attorney General just over an hour or ago that she would pursue this question in the House today. I am informed that the Attorney has no difficulty with referring this matter for the appropriate advice and I understand this is under way.
I am also advised that until this assessment has been made it is not possible to answer the second part of the question, whether there is a strong case of wrongful conviction. About whether justice has been done in this case, the Attorney does not usually comment upon matters that have been properly determined according to law. If a review is recommended, and if it were to show that some doubt arises concerning the conviction of Roseanne Catt, then the matter would be referred to the courts for a determination. The Attorney relies on the independent advice of the Crown Solicitor and the Crown Advocate in such matters. I am advised that the Attorney is not in the business of pre-empting any such advice.