OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
- The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes criminal offences for the State of Queensland. The Office is independent of government. It is not an investigative law enforcement agency. Prosecuting officers hold a public position of great trust, and are obliged by law to act impartially and in the public interest;
- That in November 1996 the Borbidge Queensland Government sought advice from Mr Royce Miller QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, regarding the findings of the Morris/Howard Report, which by the Terms of Reference under which the barristers carried out their commission, being limited to an "on the papers" investigation, was a "preliminary" examination and not a exhaustive examination of matters associated with my allegations. It was therefore not a "completed" brief in any sense of the word upon which the advancement or otherwise of a normal criminal prosecution could be evaluated;
- That on 22 November 1996, then Department of Families, Youth and Community Care Director-General The Revd Allan Male forwarded (a) the letter from departmental officials Messrs Donald Smith, Trevor Walsh and Gary Clarke seeking a meeting with a DPP official; and (b) the memorandum from the Director of Information Services Division Ms Carmel Finn which, amongst other matters, revealed the existence of the Crown Solicitor's advice of 18 May 1990 which Messrs Morris QC and Howard described as the "smoking gun" [pp74-76] and were unable to find during their work; (See Points 54 & 86)
- That this communication with the DPP was unknown to the petitioner and his counsel until 1 April 1999 when access was granted to further records held by the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care following a fresh FOI application. The petitioner is unaware as to whether or not a meeting with the DPP occurred;
- That on 11 June 1997 then Queensland Premier the Hon Rob Borbidge MLA, while in Indonesia, issued a media release stating that the DPP had advised: (i) against charges being laid against any person under sections 132 and 140 of the Criminal Code (Qld); (ii) time limitation for the commencement of charges for breaches of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 had lapsed; (iii) "theoretically" charges could be laid under section 92(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) but it wasn't in the public interest to do so; (iv) as"…Very considerable time has been expended by a good many people in the pursuit of the truth regarding the Heiner matter. One has to wonder whether the public interest requires further exploration or whether it is now time to put the matter to rest once and for all." The Borbidge Government accepted the advice (but did not release it publicly);
- That it is a matter of public record I asserted that double standards and hypocrisy were at work. The passage of time had occurred because of the cover up, and that a great many people had been hiding the truth, not pursuing it as the DPP must have known in reading the Morris/Howard Report;
- That in his (reported) advice, the DPP appeared not to have addressed the applicability of section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) which was the central offence in the Morris/Howard Report;
- That it is a matter of record - by way of contrast concerning protection of the public interest - that on 10 June 1997, (See The Weekend Independent July 1997) in the District Court of Queensland before His Honour Judge Manus Boyce, the DPP prosecuted a railway employee for receiving of and stealing. He was only days off retirement. The charge related to him allegedly stealing and/or receiving soap, litter bags, 72 sample bottles of moisturiser, hair shampoo sachets over a period in excess of twenty (20) years. It was drawn out by the Crown Prosecutor from a prosecution witness in evidence that the defendant may have come by the items legally. After a recess, the prosecutor sought the indictment's return for the purpose of endorsing it with a nolle prosequi. His Honour Judge Boyce concurred.