Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Stateline (NSW) -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) of tonight's top stories. Now a quick reminer are heading north tonight Two Australian warships in East Timor. amid continuing tensions

officials have met Union and Beaconsfield Mine this week's rescue. for the first time since will be shut It now looks like the site for the next few months. have defeated the Brumbies And the Canterbury Crusaders 33 points to 3 Super 14 clash. in tonight's crucial for this Friday. And that's ABC News I'm Juanita Phillips. is up next. 'Stateline' with Quentin Dempster Lateline is along at 10:40. We'll leave you now with pictures Nationals from the 5-day Barramundi Fishing Daly River. on the Northern Territory's Enjoy your evening and have a great weekend. International Pty Ltd Captioning and Subtitling Closed Captions produced by

Tonight on Stateline - law

and order, crime and

punishment. Find out why this

man, convicted of killing this

police officer, won on

appeal. There is no justice.

Also, misusing your power when

the media gives you a hard

time. Every time you bring a

roll of newsprint through the

ACT, I will put an excise on

it. And saving Bermagui.

Welcome to Stateline New

South Wales. I'm Quentin

Dempster. The Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court, Jim

Spigelman, has become

increasingly annoyed with the

bluster and posturing over law

and order, crime and punishment. He wants the shock

jocks, the politicians and the commentators currently

screaming for tougher sentences

to desist and leave it to the

experts. The Chief Justice has

intervened in the political and

media debate in a week in which

two decisions brought new calls

for laws to override judicial

discretion. One was the

granting of parole to a man

involved in the 1997 group

killing of police officer David

Carty. The other concerned the

murder of another police

officer, Senior Constable Glen

McEnallay. He was gunned down

in March 2002 after trying to

stop a stolen car carrying four

young men. Three of those men

were found guilty of his murder

in the Supreme Court. But this

week, a jury's decision to

convict one of them was

overturned on appeal. So how

did three Supreme Court judges

decide the jury got it wrong?

Michael Vincent looks at the acquittal.

The policeman has been shot

at Hillsdale in Sydney's south.

I stood there and I watched

that young man, I watched life,

his life ebb away.

And that death can't be in

vain.

It simply cannot be in vain.

A man convicted of murdering

a highway patrol officer has

been acquitted on appeal,

prompting an angry response

from police.

These three Appeal Court

judges an a stroke of the pen

and it's all over. That all

counts for nothing. They don't

seem to live in the same world

as the majority of us people. I

don't just mean us, but the

general population. We're not

the only ones that are

horrified with this outcome. I

think that's what a lot of

people don't understand. It's

just out the window. There is

no justice. Just how is it

that three Supreme Court judges

can throw out a jury's verdict?

It comes down to their

interpretation of two words:

common purpose. What common

purpose means very simply is

that there was a general

agreement between the accused

and the person who shot the gun

to do something violent, and

that it was within the con --

contemplation of their

agreement that the shooting

would occur. The key word

there is agreement, not just

knowledge that someone would

shoot to kill. Senior Constable

Glen McEnallay was fatally shot

on March 27, 2002. The

26-year-old was alone and

chasing a stolen vehicle.

Inside the vehicle, four men

and four loaded guns. The car

crashed and Sione Pensini

jumped out. He fired five shots

as the car of Glen McEnallay

stopped, four shots hit

McEnallay, fatally wounding

him. All four men then fled the

scene. Pensini pleaded guilty

to the murder. The jury found

passenger John Taufahema was

also guilty of the murder.

Another passenger, Meli Lagi,

was acquitted by the jury of

murder, but convicted on a

firearms charge. Then in a

separate trial, Taufahema's

brother Motekiai, who what is

driving the vehicle, was found

guilty of murder. E he was

acquitted this week. How

unusual is it for a murder

conviction to be acquitted in

the Supreme Court? It's not

common. And particularly if the

case is one where the murder is

of a police officer, the

outcome such as this is in fact

quite sensational. Mark

Findlay has been a specialist

in criminal law for 25 years.

He studied the original

conviction and acquittal. The

error seems to be here that

firstly it was assumed in the

trial that the accused assisted

Pensini, who individually --

the individual who shot the gun

and that they had agreed to be

involved in the use of guns in

order to avoid arrest. And on

both point, the Appeal Court

said no, there was no evidence

of that. So for that evidence

to have been there, there

must've been some sort of transcript or interview with

the police? Yeah, there was no

evidence in terms of what the

accused said in his record of interview to support that position. But you could draw

the inferences fairly strongly

as it was done in the trial,

that that was the case. The

second point which is important

here, though, is we should

remember that it's not just

what we think, it's what the

prosecution has to prove, and

the prosecution has to prove

that there was a broad agreement and that there was some knowledge, for instance,

on the accused's part, that

there were guns in the car.

Incredible as it may seem, the

prosecution weren't able to

prove that. On the day Glen

McEnallay was shot, Motekiai

Taufahema was on parole. He was

driving without a licence in a

stolen car with three friends

and four firearms. This is a

portion of the police interview with Motekiai Taufahema that

was cited in the appeals court

judgment. Do you know if any of

the people in your vehicle had

weapons? No, if I knew anybody

had weapons I wouldn't have

(bleep) jumped in the car and

drive with the. Like I just got

out of prison. Did you mention

to the other three people in the car that the police were

behind you at any stage? Oh

... did they know that the

police was behind you? Did you say anything? Alright,

alright, yeah I said (bleep) I

haven't got a licence I'm gonna

be done for unlicensed driving

again. Okay. What did they

say? They were all ... we've

got the police behind me and

after that I was just - I just

drove. Alright. Was there any

other talk about the policemen

being behind you? No. I just

told them to put your seatbelt

on. Have you handled any

weapons in the last 24 hours?

No. And that's exactly what the

Appeals Court judges found. That Taufahema had been

convicted on evidence that

didn't exist. There was no

evidence that could justify the

conclusion that Taufahema

agreed with Pensini that he

should use the gun to threaten, let alone shoot at, the police

officer. In the trial, the jury

felt that the agreement was

very broad and that it was

obvious that guns with would be

used as part of that. The

Appeal Court took a far

narrower view and that narrow view was simply that the

afwreem was nothing more to

escape and there was no

knowledge of guns involved. Doesn't this whole

case then say that juries see

things differently to

judges? Absolutely. But isn't

our system based on the jury

system? No. What our system is

based on is the jury at first

instance. First up, the juries

get a crack at it. After that,

if there is a conviction, we

can appeal, and then it's left

to the judges to look at the

way in which the law

technically applies. This area

is very, very broad, but also

very uncertain. It's all about

the common law. It's about the

way judges see it. And the

interpretation in this case has

been quite narrow. I'm

confused here. Taufahema's

brother was also convicted of

murder. Why is it that he was convicted, and his brother

wasn't? Yes, he was. And he was

convicted under common purpose.

And I think the reason for that

was that the evidence was clearer in his situation, that

he knew guns were in the car,

and that he knew it was likely

that they would be used. In

this case, it was the driver

and the driver simply said and

held to his story that he

didn't know guns were present,

and all that he did was run

away. The family of Glen

McEnallay, the Police

Commissioner and the State Government are all hoping there

will be an appeal to the High

Court to have this acquittal overturned. What chance do you

think they? Very little. This

was a careful judgment, handed

down by senior judges, and I

think it was within the

possibility of the interpretations of the law. I

think what we have here is law

that can be interpreted in

different ways. I think the

Appeal Court's interpreted it

in the way that they have and I

think the High Court would find

some difficulty in coming up with a different

decision. Won't this just

infuriate members of the public

even members of that jury,

knowing that he's now got

off? Look, I think there's

always going to be in cases

like this a great deal of

difference between what we

think is just and fair, and

what the law says in terms of

what is right against the

principles that our law holds.

And perhaps that discrepancy

will always be there. I think

one of the great principles of

the jury is the fact that the

jury can translate the outrage

of the public more keenly into

a trial result. But I also

believe that appeals should be

based on what the law says.

Taufahema will not taste

freedom just yet. He's been

convicted of assaulting another

police officer. He will remain

in jail until at least end of

2007. There has been no

decision yet over a possible

High Court appeal to overturn

his murder acquit al.

The perceived political need

to go harder on criminals to

comfort victims and their

families has led to some

unusually rapid reforms. They

may be derileded as pleading

hearts or civil libertarians

but many legal experts and

lawyers are saying that

fundamental principles of

justice are at stake. So far

they haven't persuaded the

Iemma Government which is

pressing ahead with its law and order auction agenda. Right now

the Parliament is debating

majority verdicts for all

trials, but the government has

avoided the first test in the

Supreme Court of another

controversial law - continuing

detention for a notorious paedophile. Adrian Raschella

reports. I am concerned of the

erosion of justice in this

first four months of this year.

It horrifies me. I have

absolute conviction that the

changes we have made are

appropriate. While millions of

people are busy getting on with

their lives, something of a

legal revolution has been under

way in New South Wales, and

many in the legal community are

alarmed. Headline grabbing

events have been followed by

significant changes to the

criminal justice system. Such

as a quick change to the law

after the Cronulla riots, so

alleged rioters now face a

presumption against bail. There

are many other changes. People

can be passively searched for

drugs in some public places by

sniffer dogs, without police

needing a warrant. June McPhee

is the President of the peak

law body in New South Wales,

the Law Society. The law laws

coming before the Parliament

are rush ed and ill

considered. This week, the

Supreme Court was due to test a

new law passed just weeks ago,

referred to as continuing

detention. It lets the

government ask a judge to keep

a serial sex offender in jail

indefinitely for fear he may

offend again. Even after he's

served his sentence. It was

introduced to keep William

Gallagher in jail. Now his visa

has been revoked and he's due

to be deported instead. Public

defender Anthony Cook says the

continuing detention law is one

of the most offensive changes

to date. It is abhorrent. It

will keep people in jail who

may not ever commit the crime

that they are predicted to be

likely to commit. It is

completely contrary to the

notion of people being punished

for crimes they have committed

and only for those crimes. And

it is a dreadful departure from

the basic principles of justice. The accused is committed to another sentence

for a crime he hasn't yet

committed. I mean, that is

ridiculous. Even the Director

of Public Prosecutions is

opposed to this measure. But

the Attorney-General, Bob Debus

is unrepentant. He says that

law will rarely be used and

it's been upheld by the High

Court. We are one of the later

states to adopt this particular

sort of legislation which

applies in cases of enormous

difficulty, where you have a

serial and serious paedophile

who will not subject themselves

to any treatment and who, the

evidence must show, is going to

go out the gates of the prison

and commit those offences all

over again. We cannot go away

from the basic principle that

people should only be in prison

pursuant to a court order after

they have committed a crime. It

is tempting to go away from

that principle to deal with the

horrendous cases which from

time to time emerge. But once

you do that, you've really

changed the nature of this

society. And the nature of how

the criminal justice system

deals with sexual assault

victims is also changing. And

not before time, according to

Karen Willis from the Rape

Crisis Centre. She says sexual

assault victims are punished by

the court system. One woman in

particular who said to me she'd

been sexually assaulted eight

years ago by three men, she'd

been through five trials and I

think two retrials. I have

forgotten now how many appeals.

It was eight years on and she

still didn't have a guilty

conviction and she said to me

if she had any idea of what she

was in for, she just would've

got up, gone home, had a shower

and forgot all about it. Now, that's just not good

enough. The total system of

criminal justice requires that

people are treated justly. And

our system, which has

retraumatised the complainants

in sexual assault cases over

many years, just has to be

changed. Bob Debus has

presided over so. Most

significant reform in this

area, including a very

controversial one, that allows

transcript evidence from a

trial to be used in a retrial

if the alleged rape victim refuses to give evidence again

- a situation tested recently

for the first time, when Bilal

Skaf and a younger associate

were convicted of the gang rape

of a 16-year-old girl. Law

Society President June McPhee

says the use of transcript

evidence violates basic legal

principles dating back hundreds

of years. That's a farce. If

someone stands up there and

reads from a book, you are not

getting the feeling behind the

genuine truth and honesty of

the evidence. It's very bland.

And more importantly, you are

not able to cross-examine the

person who's reading from a

transcript and

cross-examination is a basic

principle of testing the

evidence. How is a jury

supposed to make a proper

determination about the

credibility of someone and

generally in these cases it is

the credibility of the

complainant which is one of the

central issues, without seeing

and hearing the person? We are

not here talking about some

kind of knee jerk reaction. We

are talking about a careful and

deliberate series of decisions,

including the one about

transcripts, which has been put

into place systematically since

2002. I utterly reject the idea

that somehow or other we are

overturning a fundamental

principle of justice. We are

not. If it's a knee jerk

response to try to improve that

conviction rate, then let the

knees go crazy. We absolutely

need to do something about the

appalling conviction rate and the appalling treatment of

women through the criminal

justice process. Perhaps one of

the most controversial reforms

is still before the Parliament

- majority verdicts. The

government wants to allow 11 to

1 verdicts in all criminal

trials. Not only are we

looking at a throwing away a practice that's been well

established for 200 years or

more, we're throwing away the

basis of criminal culpability

by lowering the standard of

proof. Most other jurisdictions

in Australia have majority

verdicts. Britain has had

majority verdicts in all

criminal matters since 1965,

and no-one has seriously

suggested that it has brought

about any injustice

whatsoever. Bob Debus says

there are too many hung juries

in New South Wales and there's

a problem are rogue jurors. The

DPP strongly supports majority

verdicts, saying there would be

safeguards in place, including

a minimum eight-hour jury

deliberation barrister Anthony

Cook says the notion of beyond

reasonable doubt can only work

with unanimous verdicts. If you

have one person who doesn't go

with the majority, that is

plainly a less certain result

than when all 12 are convinced

one way or the other. Critics

say so much of this change is

reaction nair ree, policy on

the run a government responding

to community outrage over

specific cases rather than

listening to expert bodies such

as the Law Reform Commission

and Law Society. And with law

and order a big issue in New

South Wales, many leaders in

the criminal justice system are

filled with dread as the State

heads into an election

year. Where is it going to go

from here? My worst fears are

that it's going to go downhill,

we're going to have more laws

that are knee jerky and

sensationalist to satisfy a

perceived public call for

protection. There was a period

in this State where you

would've said the criminal jus

cities system has never been

better. Never been fairer.

Never been ... um ... more

guaranteed to ensuring that

innocent people don't go to

jail. We are now moving rapidly

away from that. The peak bodies

are barking up the wrong tree.

They've just gone off a bit too

soon. They're talking about

what are, from my point of

view, merely rational, careful

changes that will ensure that

the public of New South Wales

can continue to respect our

criminal justice system.

Ghosts from the political

past emerged this week to

remind us about the cut,

thrust, triumphs and tricks,

malice and man nip nation of politics. Former Prime Minister

Paul Keating and former Premier

Neville Wran, sons of the New

South Wales Sussex Street Labor

machine, delivered some

revealing insights into the use

or possible abuse of power. Mr

Keating was launching a book in

which 24 writers, both insiders

and outsiders, analysed the

strengths and weaknesses of

Neville Wran's governments from

1976 to 1986. In the process,

observers, including Stateline,

gathered at the Strangers'

Lounge at Parliament House to

see Mr Keating and Mr Wran

revel in their victories and

revive old grudges. He

dominated New South Wales

politics for over a decade. He

made it seem too easy. Troy

Bramston's edited critique of

the Wran era asserts that

Neville Wran's government 30

years ago became the template,

post Whitlam for fiscally

conservative, moderately

progressive Labor

administrations which captured

the political middle

ground. Politics proceed on the

basis of no holds barred and no

prisoners taken. I never saw

those and I never did and I

never will. Neville loved a

fight, whether it's in the

Parliament, caucus and

especially at Premiers

Conferences. I liked the fights

with Neville, I like a brawl. I

think in that sense, I'm

seriously slightly bizarre!

Well, he did like a fight. I

did, too. While the book positively examination health, education, law and order,

social, environmental women's

policy and electoral reform,

some contributors criticised

Neville Wran's failure to confront endemic police

corruption. Even after all

these years, and a Royal

Commission finding that New

South Wales police had been

organising the crime, not

fighting it, through the 1970s,

80s and into the 1990s, Mr Wran

still would have none of

it. I've got on the record

finally before as Ned Wade

would say, I slip off the hook.

I would like to make it clear

what our approach to corruption

and crime was and as far as I'm

concerned is. There is a thing

in our society which has always

been treasure ed. It's called

the presumption of innocence.

In the years I was a the party

President, we had all of these

dreadful problems, the Baldwin

bashing and I had Richo and two

Royal Commissions. It was no

fun in those days. The Libs, of

course, could never beat

Neville on the stump, so they

always went down the dirt road.

They did the same with me, they

did the same with Gough, for

Gough it was the Sankey affair,

for me it was the piggery. You

know the story. And there was

crook coppers and Hong Kong

bank accounts and there was

gonna be an ICAC and of course

the first person the rat trap

of the ICAC closed on was of

course its inventor, Mr

Greiner. And of course, these

things just all disappeared. This is where these big fights

come from, as they make clear

in the book, the big league and

the rest. Dogged by allegations

of corruption in the early 80s,

it was their highly charged

relationships with the media,

the ABC, through the Wran Royal

Commission, but particularly

the Fairfax press's 'Sydney

Morning Herald', which elicited

some note worthy revelations

from the two warhorses. So I

lined the Herald up. Neville

and I discussed it. I'd just

retired as party president. I

might've still been party

president, I can't quite - no,

I just retired but I was

treasurer. Anyway, I saw Suich

and Gardiner at Gardiner's

house. Gardiner was the

commercial manager of the

Herald. Look, I say you two run

a corrupt organisation. You say

you don't like us. I say it's

time we exposed your

corruption. You say "Do your

best." I said "I will." And I

said the first thing we'll do,

every truck that leaves your

yard, we'll have a police car

on it. Every time you bring a

roll of newsprint through the

ACT, I'll put an excise on it

and we'll tell the public why

we're doing this. We'll tell

the public, all we want from

you is an honest campaign,

nothing more. We don't want any

preference, we just want an

honest campaign. We want you to

take Steketee off the case, and

Whitton, and put on it a

journalist of integrity who

will report the vents as they

happen. And of course, that's

what happened. They took

Steketee off and they put Daffy

Bowers on and he reported the

campaign for the four weeks,

and we slipped past the Libs

and the dirt squad again. I

found the best antidote for the

Herald, they were giving me

merry hell, and you're not in a

position, really, to fight back

effectively. So ... we used to

spend a few million a year on

advertisements in the 'Sydney

Morning Herald', and I thought,

"Why should they have those ads

and all that money and they're

kicking my guts out all the

time?" With we sent the word

out, no more advertisements in

the 'Sydney Morning Herald'.

And I can tell you, it was

extraordinary the way the temp

er of the paper

changed! (LAUGHTER) And after a

while, I let 'em off the hook.

Because at heart, I'm a

marshmallow, and

... (LAUGHTER) ... you don't

like to sort of keep old grudges, and things like

that. (LAUGHTER) Regrettably

there's still no expert

analysis of Neville Wran's

apprentice, Bob Carr, and the

Carr Government's 1995 to 2005.

With new Premier Morris Iemma

struggling, with the State

economy losing momentum and

preparing to be whacked by

voters in the state election

next March, that bit of history

is about to be written.

That's Stateline for this

week. Our apologies for the

non-appearance of the 'Do It

Yourself Dissent' tape on the

fight to save Bergagui from

excessive development. We hope

to bring it to you next week.

We're repeated on noon tomorrow

at ABCTV 1. All eight territory

and State editions are repeated

in one huge block twice. We're

told some thinking Australians

are embarrassed if they miss that block. It's becoming some

sort of intellect tut status

symbol to sit through the lot!

Goodness! You can email us.

The 7.30 Report is back on

Monday with Kerry O'Brien.

Bye-bye.

This program is not subtitled THEME MUSIC Welcome to the show. I'm Andy Muirhead and this is Collectors, the show that celebrates ordinary people and the extraordinary things that they collect. Joining me here in the studio is our panel of experts. Professor of Sociology and '50s fan, Adrian Franklin. Museum curator and historian, Niccole Warren, And antiques dealer and collector, Gordon Brown. So, let's see what's on tonight's show, Niccole. Tonight we meet Australia's foremost helixophile.

Double levers, single levers, rack and pinion. I'm a helixophile.

I'm addicted to collecting corkscrews. And Lauren's collecting some seductive artwork from the '50s and '60s. Prints like these were produced in the millions in the '50s and '60s.