drsleuth
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 6,413
- Reaction score
- 40,137
I don't think I'm taking liberty at all Warsh...and I'm well aware of Mr Craddock's role & the Coroners .With all due respect Doc, I think you may be taking some liberty with that bolded interpretation of Gerard Craddock’s statement to deputy state coroner Harriet Grahame.
Craddock is not the Coroner. He is a Barrister, appointed to assist the Coroner in this Inquest.
I’d presume his responsibilities include keeping her informed of occurrences that may perhaps have a bearing on the Inquest ( e.g. someone being charged over William’s disappearance/ death / accessory to / after / etc )
It’s well documented that he fulfilled those duties at thIs latest hearing, notifying Ms Grahame & court records, that the Police have put a submission to the DPP regards possible charges in relation to William.
Ms Grahame holds the power in this Inquest, and decides what goes where etc in relation to the Inquest (404 )
The Coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury.
Additional powers of the Coroner include the power of subpoena, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and the power to sequester juries of six during inquests.
… . Also to authorise a police officer or other person to enter any place and gather evidence, similar to a search warrant .
to clear a court in certain circumstances and prevent publication of certain evidence. …
Uummmm ..
Lol - if I was in Craddock’s position I think I’d make it clear that I hadn’t overstepped my mark & reached out to the DPP ! It wasn’t me Your Honour, we’re all loyal to you
Seriously tho, IMO - this was simply an awareness statement. It was not intended to imply anything other than the fact that there has been a submission tendered to the DPP by Police.
This is a dreadful & unimaginable situation to have occurred & I’m sure I’m safe to say We All want the truth to prevail. I’m trying to have faith & to remain objective, to absorb & think carefully, and to remember that journalists get paid by headline attention !!
All IMO.
I don't think that Mr Craddock, when notifying the Coroner ,was the first time Coroner Grahame became aware of the referral to the DPP , he was doing his "job" , also making the public aware & as you say making a record to the court IMO
The Coroner was ready to hand down her findings, which IMO was not to refer the case to the DDP - if so the inquest would have been suspended - s78 of the Coroners Act is an interesting read View - NSW legislation
So IMO Mr Craddock was making it clear that he had nothing to do with seeking "advice" from the DPP & he may have a negative view of the way the NSWPF has handled this - again IMO