Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry News and Updates
On 4 April 2014 Supreme Court rejects appeal against Commissioner Carmody’s Findings
On 1 July 2013 Commissioner Tim Carmody SC found that the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents and tapes represented a prima facie breach of the section 129 of the Criminal Code against all the surviving members of the 5 March 1990 Goss Cabinet.
This was hardly a surprise to anyone with knowledge of this scandal. For years, some of this nation’s most eminent jurists have long publicly advised of this prima facie breach but the respective Goss/Beattie and Bligh regimes, CJC/CMC, police and DPP turned a blind eye to the glaringly obvious.
The serious prima facie crime Commissioner Carmody found was the same offence which whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg took to the CJC in 1990 and to the police in 1994. Back in 1990, the offence attracted a 3-year jail term; now in 2014, it attracts a 7-year jail term. By any measure, the crime of destroying evidence, if proven, is a serious one.
The two decades of alleged cover-up still remain unaddressed.
On 19 July 2013, Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie referred the finding to the Queensland DPP to decide whether or not it was in the public interest for those surviving Cabinet Ministers to stand trial. In exercising his legal right, former Goss Attorney-General, Dean Wells, lodged a Supreme Court appeal on 29 July 2013 seeking to have the finding rendered null and void on various grounds, including a charge of apprehended bias against Commissioner Carmody.
It was this appeal (6906/13) which has delayed matters with the DPP.
On 13 February 2014 the hearing took place before Justice Glenn Martin AM in the Supreme Court. Counsel for Mr Wells was Mr Dan O’Gorman SC, and, in one of his final appearances as Queensland Solicitor-General before resigning, Mr Walter Sofronoff QC, together with Mr Adam Pomerenke QC, appeared for the Attorney-General. The case was argued all day.
On 4 April 2014, Justice Martin handed down his 45-Page decision. The appeal was dismissed. On 13 May 2014, final orders were made when Mr Wells decided not to appeal.
http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2014/059 See Wells v Carmody and Anors QSC  59
Readers should read the full judgement. Amongst other things, it seems relevant to note at Point 76 in his judgement that Justice Martin acknowledged the legal issues which Mr Lindeberg has been pursuing since 1990:
“…Mr Lindeberg had been making allegations about the conduct of the Cabinet with respect to the Heiner documents since December 1990. He has made allegations about the legality of that conduct at various times since 1990. He has alleged that the conduct amounted to, amongst other things, an obstruction of justice, interference with the right to a fair trial, abuse of office, and misleading Parliament.”