Highly Unusual - or not?

[Squawk]

Rann spin-doctors rush to highlight prosecutor's retractionSEAN FEWSTER, COURT REPORTER
February 12, 2009 06:50pm

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25043786-5006301,00.html
A PROSECUTOR has "unreservedly withdrawn" comments made in court accusing the Rann Government of "rushing through, not thinking through" its legislation.

And government spin-doctors wasted little time publicising Peter Longson's courtroom retraction – they emailed the transcript to the media, asking reporters "ensure" his comments were published.

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson tonight contacted The Advertiser to spell out the Government's position, saying he had merely been hoping for a simple correction.

He said that both he and Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras QC "are of one mind about Mr Longson's conduct".

"There is no conflict of any kind about this matter," Mr Atkinson said.

"I commend Mr Pallaras' handling of this matter."

The incident is the latest in a feud between the State Government and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that dates back to 2002's controversial Nemer case.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond said she found the email disturbing.

"I just cannot comprehend that any government can get to the stage where any minior criticism from a public servant is something that must be attacked," she said.

"I would have thought we should be inviting comments from lawyers about our legislation so that we can figure out what works and what doesn't, then correct it."

Mr Longson made his original comment last week, during the District Court case of Jacqueline May Horscroft-Byron.

He said there was no reason she should not face a maximum 15-year jail term over the 2007 death of pensioner Ted Hyland – whom she did not realise she had hit.

"This might be a case where the legislation has been rushed through, not thought through, in the wake of the Eugene McGee case," he said at the time.

The case returned to court on Wednesday, when Mr Longson recanted.

"I need to unreservedly withdraw any submission I made that may have been critical of those who drafted the provisions," he said.

A copy of those remarks was sent to the media by a spokeswomen for the Attorney-General.

"If your (organisation) printed the comments... last week, can you please ensure that today's events before the court are included in your news," her email says.

"That is, a retraction of those comments."

Ms Redmond said public servants should be allowed to do their jobs "without fear or favour regardless of who the government of the day is".

"One of the most valuable things a public servant can do is provide honest criticism," she said.

Below is the full email to the media from Attorney-General Michael Atkinson's media spokesman. The email had an attachment of the court transcript in which the prosecutor withdrew his comments.

Hello,
If your network/publication broadcast/printed the comments from Prosecutor Peter Longson in the Horscroft-Byron case last week can you please ensure that today's events before the court are included in your news tonight. That is, a retraction of those comments.

The last statement from Mr Longson in the attached transcript is the relevant section.
Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jayne

Jayne Stinson
Office of the Premier
Media Adviser

The Hon. Michael Atkinson
Attorney-General
Minister for Justice
Minister for Multicultural Affairs
Minister for Veterans' Affairs

I found this extraordinary - a prosecutor makes a submission to the Court. To the best of my knowledge, there was no objection registered by either the Court or by Defence Counsel at the time. Days later at the next hearing, the prosecutor withdraws part of his submission with apparently no such request from the Court of Defence Counsel. This is a highly unusual practice in itself, and what is even more unusual is the terminology used - "unreservedly withdraw".

Moments later, a politically appointed staffer draws this to the attention of media outlets.

This suggests that the prosecutor was leaned upon to withdraw his statement to the court. So much so that after originally publishing this article, the A-G saw fit to personally intervene to clarify that "there is no conflict". There are about 1500 DPP files a year and the A-G is suddenly very interested in this one in particular - a case of alleged hit and run?

Does it make a difference to the outcome of the trial? Maybe, maybe not.

If it doesn't make a difference, why make the retraction?

If it does make a difference to the outcome, has the judicial process been unreasonably interfered with?

This affair is a real concern in my humble opinion.

[The Big Shrek]

I'm not really sure if it is a lawyers job to criticise a law in court. They are there to uphold the law, not say "this one doesn't really apply because it was rushed through".

[Squawk]

Then if you accept that Shrek, it is a matter for internal counselling and something that is par for the course in any workplace, incl. the DPP.

In this instance, there has been a huge political song and dance made.

I get back to my earlier question - if it didn't affect the trial, why do it? If it did affect the trial, has there been undue influence of the justice process here? These are two very serious questions.