This has probably been covered before but wondering why the Taskforce may have referred this case to the ODPP? Apparently in NSW, the police prosecute 95% of criminal cases. The ODPP prosecutes on behalf of the people of NSW. Is it the public interest in the case, the govt. departments involved with WT's care, the types of charges that are being considered in regards to the FFC or the appearance of impartiality as opposed to a police prosecution?
If there was nothing to the charges to be considered, it's difficult to see why the ODPP hasn't promptly handed the brief back to the police. The idea that it is not a priority and sitting at the bottom of a pile somewhere is difficult to consider since this is highly publicised and awaiting this office's next move for a coronial inquest to continue. What reasons could the ODPP have for still having this brief?
So, from what I understand, the coroner was ready to deliver her findings on June a few years ago, when the police began focusing on the FFC and all the legal proceedings after that which included saying she was a primary POI/suspect, the big dig, forensic search of FGM's car, NSW CC, unrelated charges for various things and having a child in her care removed. I'm guessing that to consider re-opening the inquest and listening to more evidence, other lines of inquiry have opened up since the coroner was going to deliver her findings but Gerard Craddock's comments seem to have distanced the coroner's court proceedings with anything in relation to the FFC. The dig and FGM car search was signed off by the coroner. Maybe he was distancing the court from all the surveillance and subsequent charges. Someone had to have justified and signed off on 14 months of bugging? I wonder what the coroner's findings would have been a few years ago and what they want to explore during the next tranche.