Channel 7 - Today Tonight (Adelaide)
The DPP [Paul Rofe QC] Gambling Issues 17 February 2003

This version of the transcript has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles

The Baby Deaths homepage
The Henry Keogh homepage
Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases
Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases
Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases

In order of appearance

Leigh McClusky - presenter
Mr Paul Rofe QC - the Director of Public Prosecutions
Dr Bob Moles
Graham Archer - Producer and Interviewer

Program

Leigh McClusky:

Hello, welcome to the program. First tonight, perhaps one of the most controversial and high profile roles in our justice system is that of the Director of Public Prosecutions - a hot seat which has been filled by Paul Rofe QC for the past 10 years with some distinction. But after one scrape with the law you would imagine that Mr Rofe would be very careful about the image of the position he holds. Well, it seems he may have dropped his guard again. Over a period of a week and a half we observed our DPP visiting the local TAB and buying scratchy tickets up to 17 times in one working day. Now whilst this is all perfectly legal it does beg the question - is this the best use of Mr Rofe's time? And is it setting the right standards for the office he holds? Graham Archer has this report.

Paul Rofe:

I think its very much representing the public of South Australia as the Director of Public Prosecutions and that's the important part of the title I think.

Bob Moles:

What we would want with people who hold that sort of office are people who act in such a way that they are examples for others to follow, not examples for others to avoid.

Graham Archer:

Being the State's top law man is no popularity contest?

Paul Rofe:

No, I don't think it can be described that way.

Graham Archer:

And certainly, South Australia's DPP Paul Rofe QC seems unfazed by the burdens of public office.

Graham Archer:

But it must be a burden to be the man who has to put most of South Australia's criminals in jail?

Paul Rofe:

No, I enjoy the job.

Graham Archer:

And little wonder. Its 11.15 on a normal Friday morning and the Pirie Street TAB has just opened. And one of their first customers is our DPP. He's just made his way there after an hour at reading the paper in his favourite cafe. Perhaps the boss has simply drawn the short straw in the prosecutor's office punting syndicate? That must be it. 5 minutes later he's back to the office. But what's this? 25 minutes past and he's back again. This time to the newsagency. Can't be the paper? It's the scratchies. Then back into the TAB. Probably forgot that tricky trifecta.

Paul Rofe:

Its like any job I guess...

Graham Archer:

But now it's getting, well, more curious. 12.25 and he's back to the TAB - 1.40 and he's there again - then into the newsagency for more scratchies - and back to the TAB at 2.05 - 2.40 more scratchies - 2.42 the TAB again - another coffee break and at 3.27 it's back to the TAB - 4.10 the TAB - 4.40 the TAB and more scratchies - 5-o-clock the TAB and so on. In total 12 TAB visits 5 scratchy stops and 3 coffee breaks and another day of cornering crims is over.

Bob Moles:

We do expect our judges, prosecutors, senior lawyers to act in a way which is beyond reproach. This would not be consistent with that.

Graham Archer:

Bob Moles is a former associate professor of law at Adelaide Uni - who has just completed a book on miscarriages of justice in this State. He's highly critical of the culture that has pervaded our criminal justice system over the past few decades.

Bob Moles:

I've looked at quite a number of cases now, over the last 3-4 years, and I have to say that I find them to be quite baffling. I'm really quite puzzled as to how they've been handled.

Graham Archer:

Questions have to be asked about what sort of work standards are being set. Over a week and a half we watched our DPP make visit after visit to the TAB and the local newsagency to buy scratchy tickets as well as spend large amounts of time at the cafe. Every day this happened and an average of 9-10 gambling stops each day. All perfectly legal of course.
OK, what about the personal burden of the pressures of this job, what are they?

Paul Rofe:

Oh, - they can be stressful.

Graham Archer:

Your health has suffered at times?

Paul Rofe:

Yes.

Graham Archer:

I know you are a heavy smoker and like a drink, is that a product of the job?

Paul Rofe:

I think I was doing that before I started the job.

Graham Archer:

What about the gambling?

Paul Rofe:

No, I don't regard it as a problem.

Graham Archer:

There are also rumours that you had lost large sums at the casino?

Paul Rofe:

Yes, I've heard those rumours.

Graham Archer:

They're not true?

Paul Rofe:

No.

Graham Archer:

But you do like a flutter on the horses?

Paul Rofe:

I do.

Graham Archer:

And it's actually a bit more than a flutter?

Paul Rofe:

No, I wouldn't call it more than a flutter.

Graham Archer:

We checked out the stories and one day recently, you took 12 visits to the TAB in one day, a working day, and 5 visits to the newsagency to buy scratchies.

Paul Rofe:

Nice to know someone's looking after me.

Graham Archer:

17 gambling stops in one working day is rather a lot isn't it?

Paul Rofe:

I wouldn't say so. No.

Graham Archer:

You don't think that that reflects a bit on the amount of time and thought you're putting into the job?

Paul Rofe:

No, I don't think so.

Graham Archer:

On a weekly average you go about 10 times a day to either buy scratchies or go to the TAB.

Paul Rofe:

If you say so. I don't know. I don't keep count.

Graham Archer:

It would be unfair to single out Paul Rofe as the only one accountable for the standards that those who sit in judgment on us seem to set for themselves. And is his apparent cavalier approach to his job, symptomatic of a much deeper and more serious malaise in the administration of justice?

Bob Moles:

We find that proper photographs aren't taken either at the scene or at autopsy. We find that clothing goes missing and the medical files go missing. And yet, when all of this comes before a judicial tribunal such as the Coroner's Court or the Magistrates Court or the trial court - instead of finding searching questions to say - well, why didn't this happen properly - it all just passes through as if that were normal and acceptable procedures.

Graham Archer:

For example, magistrate Peter Liddy was able to use his office to prey on children for almost 30 years. He even used public facilities such as jails and court houses as venues for his abuse?

Paul Rofe:

To my understanding, there wasn't any knowledge of Mr Liddy's use of facilities.

Graham Archer:

Well, I think there was. I mean, some of the kids were finger printed before they were taken into the cells?

Paul Rofe:

By Liddy?

Graham Archer:

Yes. Well, with the aid of attending police officers.

Paul Rofe:

Yes, I don't know those details.

Graham Archer:

In fact, the judges, prosecutors, Liddy's defence lawyers and police all visited the locations during the trial. But this point doesn't appear to have been taken up by authorities. And it's the same system that tolerated a pathologist without proper qualifications as the head of our forensic science centre for almost 30 years. Despite a catalogue of incompetence, Professor Colin Manock was allowed to continue. One of the most troubling outcomes was the conviction of Henry Keogh.
When we asked you about some of this evidence earlier, you weren't entirely up front with us about some of it were you?

Paul Rofe:

Yeh - I think I've been upfront with everything about Keogh.

Graham Archer:

Take for instance that controversial re-enactment which challenged Dr Manock's view of how Anna-Jane Cheney might have been murdered. You said that no re-enactment was contemplated by the prosecution, but there is documentation to say that there was that thought?

Paul Rofe:

I'm not sure what you mean...

Graham Archer:

Well, there was documentation on the police running sheets that was partially blacked out after an FOI request that said that a re-enactment was suggested by the police and in consultation with you it was decided not to proceed?

Paul Rofe:

I am not aware of that material.

Graham Archer:

Well, here it is. And you can make out the words that were intended to have been covered up. A later re-enactment revealed it was almost impossible to murder someone in the manner suggested by Dr Manock. And there are many other questions hanging over the case.
Let me put a proposal to you. Why don't you just open up all of the evidence to us with the appropriate experts - just make it all available - look at it - deal with it - clear the air - because it won't go away?

Paul Rofe:

As far as I'm concerned it has - we've done - we've gone down that track.

Graham Archer:

How would you sum up the handling of the Keogh case?

Bob Moles:

I would have to say that from beginning to end, it was the archetypal example of how not to conduct an investigation and how not to conduct a prosecution.

Graham Archer:

Part of the problem with the culture of the system is that some of the people who work in it think it belongs to them. When some judges deny access to transcript and court documents, when they have no lawful power to do so, then we have a problem. And is it any wonder that the justice system is open to criticism when someone like the DPP can't see his daily gambling is giving rise to all sorts of concerns?
I just wondered whether that makes you somewhat vulnerable in the position you're in?

Paul Rofe:

I think that you've got to be careful of what you do - and what you're seen to be doing, yes.

Graham Archer:

Because you know, history tells us that not many punters come out in front?

Paul Rofe:

No, that would be so.

Graham Archer:

How do you do?

Paul Rofe:

I wouldn't be in front, no.

Graham Archer:

I'm just saying, that if it becomes a big issue, then don't you see that as being, I suppose, undesirable in the kind of job that you have?

Paul Rofe:

I haven't let it come to that point, but yes, I don't deny the premise.

Graham Archer:

Do you think that this is appropriate behaviour for the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Paul Rofe:

No, I don't see what's inappropriate about it.

Graham Archer:

No one is suggesting that Paul Rofe has been compromised. But who is actually looking out for the reputation of the office of DPP or the man himself? We have known of this behaviour for some time via police, lawyers and politicians. None of whom approve, but nor do they appear to have taken any action, not even a cautionary word.
It strikes me that if you were going to visit a gambling establishment or buy some form of gambling commodity 10 times a day during your work, then it's become something of an obsession?

Paul Rofe:

Well, that's your opinion.

Graham Archer:

You don't think it's an obsession?

Paul Rofe:

No.

Graham Archer:

Have you - have you ever thought of getting some help on it?

Paul Rofe:

No.

Graham Archer:

Do you think that would be a good idea?

Paul Rofe:

No, not at the moment.

Graham Archer:

None of your friends have said, listen Paul, maybe you better lay off the gambling for bit?

Paul Rofe:

No.

Graham Archer:

I suppose the other question is, if you do that so regularly, when do you get your work done?

Paul Rofe:

I get the work done quite easily.

Graham Archer:

You don't sense that there's a feeling around the office that you're absent more than you're present?

Paul Rofe:

No.

Graham Archer:

You've had that not raised with the staff?

Paul Rofe:

Certainly no one's brought it to my attention.

Graham Archer:

I'm not sure that this is good for your image?

Paul Rofe:

No, I take your comments - and I can do no more than that.

Graham Archer:

And if you need more evidence of the different standards which seem to apply, without nit picking, even things like littering and tossing butts down and throwing away bits of paper, probably not a good idea for the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Paul Rofe:

No, I'd agree with that.

Bob Moles:

One would think that the head of the prosecution system would, in their public behaviour, act in a way that that shows that they don't have a disregard for the laws or rules of the system.

Graham Archer:

Sometimes people don't actually realise what it is the public expect of them - that they become comfortable?

Paul Rofe:

Well, that's the last thing I'd describe about this job, being comfortable.

Graham Archer:

OK, well, I don't suppose I added to the comfort?

Paul Rofe:

Ah, well, it's - again - goes with the job.

Leigh McClusky:

And today we received numerous faxes from members of the legal profession expressing their support for Mr Rofe, and emphasising that he has fulfilled his duties with distinction. We also received a press release from the Attorney General saying that Mr Rofe has given an undertaking not to gamble at work.

Top of Page