Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I have had contact with the Police Association in relation to this bill and they are very content with it. For a lot of police officers who have had previous dealings with offenders who have gotten off, if they get new evidence they will now be able to take action under certain circumstances. That is probably not a bad place to start because I can relate to a position involving myself as the officer in charge of a very serious investigation on the north-west coast. You will all know the victim; I can refer to him. I do not think I should mention the offender's name, but the victim was Sir Reginald Wright. Some of you might recall the circumstances where Sir Reginald Wright had an attempt made on his life. He was attacked in his driveway by a person wielding a firearm, an attempt was made to shoot him, but Sir Reginald was able to protect himself and avoid being shot.

The crime was investigated and an offender was charged. At the time, I believed - as did other police and the DPP at the time - that there was adequate evidence on which to convict the offender. The offender was subsequently tried and escaped conviction. Shortly thereafter, further damning evidence was located and recovered in relation to that matter, but we were unable to charge that person again. That was a very frustrating and damaging situation for us as police at the time because it was felt that we had let the victim down in the circumstances and let down those people closely involved with the victim. That has a very distressing impact on a person involved in an investigation from the point of view that they have let off an offender for a serious crime.

With this legislation, that sort of situation should be avoided. As the member for Launceston said, there are plenty of safeguards in this for an alleged offender to be assured that they are going to be dealt with fairly in all the circumstances. There are advancements in technology and forensic science occurring all the time, and who knows what is going to happen into the future. I should imagine there will probably be further advancements in DNA as we move forward as well. It is fairly well advanced at the moment but I think that there will be further advancements made there. It would be a sad situation that a person is able to avoid being found guilty of an offence because they were able to set up alibis that could later be proven to be absolutely wrong, or set themselves up with bribery of jurors or others involved in cases and prosecutions and so on. That can and does happen. In this instance, where that evidence comes to light at a later stage and it was not foreseen at the time, it can be used for the purposes of bringing that person back before a court to be charged with the same crime. That is the important issue because there have been times when persons have been found guilty but they have been brought back, as I understand it, for perjury where that can be proven and some other offences that may well be related to that court appearance but not the same charge.

In this instance the DPP has a deciding impact as he must be involved in this process and/or police officers of officer rank or above. That means that an inspector of police and/or above can make a decision in cases of urgency where it could be seen that evidence may well be lost over and above the DPP. I think it is good legislation. I wish it had been around when I was a detective because I am aware of at least two persons who were charged with major crimes who would have been brought back before a court.

The other position we have is that because of the current law in relation to this issue, police at times know very well who an offender is. They have an abundance of evidence in some situations but probably lack a very small part of evidence that they might need to convict a person. It has been said on many occasions, 'We have enough evidence to put the person before the court, however we can't really be assured of a finding of guilty. There's a chance they might get off, so we want to wait to see whether or not we can get that further evidence that we really need'. In this situation, if the police officer had an abundance of evidence, they could well, if the DPP is of the mind, proceed with the charge. If that other evidence later came up they would then be able to charge that person with the same crime again. I believe it is good legislation and, like the honourable member for Nelson, I congratulate the Government and the department involved for getting on to this matter. I suspect they worked very closely with the police on this because it is something that police have been wanting for a long time. I will be supporting the bill and am looking forward to it being enacted. I notice that this is retrospective as well, and that is very important in this instance. I have often said that retrospective legislation is poor legislation and I have not always supported it, but in this instance I certainly do. I support it being retrospective in the circumstances because there may well be people who have been exonerated and who, as a result of this legislation, may well be brought back before the courts.

Mr Wing - That would include the two you mentioned that you know of?

Mr DEAN - In relation to one it cannot because both persons are now deceased, including the alleged offender at the time. In the second case, there is a possibility. As I said, retrospectivity here will allow police at least to further investigate issues and if there are further breakthroughs in forensics, technology and so on that allow them to get more evidence they will be able to charge those people who have previously been acquitted by a jury or from a court. I support the bill in its entirety.