"Mrs EDWARDES: What then is the justification for including clause 4(b)? In the case of the Claremont serial killings,I think all members of the community would like that individual or individuals to be caught. Clause 9 allows for theinvestigation of a section 4 offence in the public interest if the normal police powers have not been sufficient to capturean offender. We should allow the police to exercise all their ordinary powers in an endeavour to catch an offender.However, if the hue and cry from the community is that it wants the Claremont offender to be caught - and I like goingto the nightclubs in Claremont, but given that I am blond I will not go there -
Mr Andrews: You would not be chased anyway!
Mrs EDWARDES: Someone might confuse me with a 21-year-old blond female!
Mr Kucera: It could be easily done!
Mrs EDWARDES: I thank the minister for that compliment!In a scenario in which strong community pressure was put on the police to solve a crime, could the exceptional powersbe used before the police had had time to exercise their ordinary powers? It would be unavoidable for the publicinterest test before the special commissioner not to take into account the hue and cry from the community. If we weregiven some indication of what is likely to be regarded as being in the public interest, it might give us some comfortabout the use of clause 4(b).
Mr McGINTY: Clause 4(b) deals with the most serious offence under the Criminal Code; that is, when one persontakes the life of another human being. A murder in itself would not be sufficient, but if it were committed in connectionwith another serious offence, it might trigger the use of these exceptional powers. Either of the two examples that havebeen raised in the debate so far - namely, an armed robbery that has resulted in death, and an act intended to causegrievous bodily harm that has resulted in death - may constitute a section 4 offence. "
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Han...825758A001A98E7/$File/A36 S1 20011128 All.pdf
Hansard 2001
page 35 (or 6042 on pdf)
"Clause 9(1) states -This Part is to facilitate the investigation of a section 4 offence.
Clause 9(3) states -The powers of a special commissioner under this Part cannot be exercised unless the special commissioner issatisfied that - . . .
(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the use of powers given by this Part would be in thepublic interest having regard to -
(i) whether or not the suspected offence could be effectively investigated without using thepowers; . . .
That is our attempt to deal with the points the member has raised; and it gives the discretion to the specialcommissioner. In a situation in which something as horrendous as the Claremont serial killings had occurred, thecommunity would place enormous pressure on the Commissioner of Police to use powers of this nature to investigatethat case. The clear legislative instruction to the special commissioner is to, first, satisfy his own mind that thetraditional policing approach and powers are not adequate to deal with the issue. That is the clear instruction to thespecial commissioner. He should use these powers only when he thinks that the existing power is not adequate toproperly deal with the situation. Today, that is a conclusion that would be very easily reached on the Claremont serialkiller. I suspect that that would not have been the case five years ago and the special commissioner would have saidthat he would not use the powers in those circumstances because, at the height of the problem, when the murders wereoccurring, those were not the sorts of powers that should have been used in that context, assuming there was nosuggestion that an organised crime gang was committing the murders.
Mrs EDWARDES: I suppose the point was that the murders took place months apart, and, therefore, once the first orsecond murders had occurred, the special commissioner’s powers would have been invoked before the third. The publicinterest would have been met because if the police powers had not been successful in the first and second instances,then it is likely that the use of the special commissioner’s power would have followed. I regard that as a special set ofcircumstances and incidents that highlight the fact that clause 4(b) will be a very useful tool. I am concerned that theremight very well be other instances in which it may be used and, potentially, it would rely heavily on the specialcommissioner and his interpretation of what might constitute public interest. "
