Page: 7713
Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [4.55 p.m.]: Many of my constituents have been disturbed for some time about the death of Caroline Byrne in my electorate in June 1995. Initially the death was investigated by the local police, who I know are concerned about the progress of the case. Nine years after her death there are still as many questions to be answered now as there were at that time. I said to many of my constituents that I understand their concern and that I would raise questions in this House with the Minister for Police about this matter. I believe that the Minister for Police should look into a number of questions. First, he should declare which police officers—by name, rank and position—have had responsibility for the investigation over the past nine years, including the dates of their involvement as the lead investigators. Second, given that Caroline Byrne's body was found between 9 and 10 metres out from the cliff face, did police attempt to determine how she could have landed at such a distance, and if so, when was that investigation undertaken?
Third, given that Sergeant Mark Powderly of the Police Rescue Squad, who attended the scene on 7 June 1995, stated in the media on 25 February 1988 that it would take a "fairly good run up" for Caroline Byrne's body to land 9 to 10 metres from the cliff face, that it was "not inconceivable" that someone threw her off, what scientific advice was sought by NSW Police? Fourth, what forensic advice did police request and what forensic advice did police receive over the past nine years, including the relevant dates of request and receipt? Fifth, what overseas travel requests were submitted by police investigating the case, which requests were granted and which requests were denied? Sixth, with reference to the statement by a spokeswoman for Commissioner of Police Ken Moroney, published in the Australian on 29 March 2004, that "the gathering of evidence—both physical and forensic—does take a prolonged period of time", was the commissioner instructed by the Minister's office to downplay criticism of the investigation delays?
Finally, given the delays in the police investigation, the delay in the interviewing of witnesses, the delay in the testing of alibis and the delay in the pursuit of persons of interest, will the Minister establish an independent commission of inquiry to review the chronology and methodology of the police investigation? As I have said on a number of occasions recently, when one goes back over the sequence of events of the past nine years, one can readily understand the concerns of my constituents and many people in New South Wales¯concerns that have been raised a number of times. In 1998 the media asked why we have not made more progress with this case. Obviously a number of different issues need to be pursued, but the Minister could answer the questions I have asked.
One of the most important questions is, simply, did police have the resources to pursue this case? I note that one of the lead investigators in 1998, at the time of the Coroner's inquest, was subsequently moved and seemed to reappear to comment on the case at a later time. A current lead investigator, who has been there for some time, is respected for his work.
For five years after the death of Carolyn Byrne, Rene Rivkin and Graham Richardson were not interviewed about the alibi that was given by Mr Wood at the time of the initial investigation. Seemingly, many aspects of this case were not pursued aggressively. In November 2002, Ron Dyer in the upper House put on the record that he understood from police that resources were the issue. Those resources were cut. I want to know whether it was resources, whether it was a competency issue, or whether the case was manipulated to slow it down. Late last year the media reported that police had finally sought forensic advice. Was that the case, or did they seek advice before then? It is inexplicable that police actually asked for that forensic evidence eight years after the death of Carolyn Byrne.