Channel 7 - Today Tonight (Adelaide)
Michael Abbott QC - Response on Behalf of The Law Society - 18 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
Graham Archer - Producer and interviewer
Paul Rofe QC - Director of Public Prosecutions
Michael Abbott QC

Program

Leigh McClusky:

Good evening and welcome to the program. First tonight, the Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe QC and his frequent gambling activities during office hours. Today the Attorney General Michael Atkinson told the Parliament that he had sought legal advice as to whether Mr Rofe should be sacked, saying his behaviour was less than desirable. Whilst Mr Rofe has retained his position, his legal colleagues are fuming at this program for including the DPP in our questioning of the working of the criminal justice system generally. As Graham Archer reports, prominent QC Michael Abbott wanted to respond on behalf of the Law Society.

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:

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:

Last night's story on the work day gambling routine of the Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe QC attracted considerable interest.

Graham Archer:

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:

It also attracted its share of criticism, not the least of which came from the DPP's legal colleagues.
Michael, when we asked the President of the Law Society to respond to our story on Paul Rofe, they deputised you for the job, have you got sharper teeth?

Michael Abbott:

It's not a question of sharper teeth. Your program went much further than a mere criticism of Mr Rofe's work practices - and firstly, I think you owe Mr Rofe an apology.

Graham Archer:

On what score?

Michael Abbott:

Well, in view of what you said, I mean, now is your opportunity to apologise.

Graham Archer:

Michael Abbott QC is one of Adelaide's mot prominent criminal barristers, and one of the most vocal critics.

Michael Abbott:

I take it you will apologise to him for what you said to him?

Graham Archer:

Well, I don't think there's any need to apologise, Paul Rofe himself said that he'd done the wrong thing.

Michael Abbott:

Your program linked his work practices to what you perceive to be miscarriages of justice and defects in the judicial system, and it's what you said so far as the Law Society's concerned about the judicial system that I think demands a response.

Graham Archer:

First things first. To his credit, Paul Rofe didn't shy away from his image of gambling at work as being a matter of legitimate public interest. When interviewed on ABC radio this morning:
David Bevan and Mathew Abraham Radio 5 AN

Announcer:

Although you may feel that the public perception is distorted because it doesn't take into account your after hours work, do you agree that there is a public interest issue here?

Paul Rofe:

Yes, I do.

Michael Abbott:

We don't have trial by media, we have trial by courts.

Graham Archer:

But when the courts aren't operating correctly, in specific cases, then surely it's the right of the media to issue a debate about that?

Michael Abbott:

Well, you arrogate that right to yourself. I don't accept that you have got a right to assert that the courts aren't operating properly.

Graham Archer:

Well, you don't know Michael, exactly the cases I'm talking about?

Michael Abbott:

Well of course I don't.

Graham Archer:

So, you're just simply ...

Michael Abbott:

But, I suggest that you don't either. I mean you might have done some research...

Graham Archer:

Is that not the height of arrogance?

Michael Abbott:

No, I mean ...

Graham Archer:

Is that not the height of arrogance to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, when in fact you just admitted that you don't know what I'm talking about?

Michael Abbott:

Well, well look, you can debate it that way if you like.

Graham Archer:

However, we weren't suggesting that the DPP was responsible for all of the shortcomings of the system, but that his lapse in concentration was indicative of other lapses in observing proper procedures such as those in the prosecution of the Keogh case in which Mr Rofe did play a central role.

Michael Abbott:

You can have program after program on Liddy's case or Keogh's case, I don't care. You can also raise - as a matter of legitimate public interest - concerns you might have about any officer who holds any public office. But what you've done in your program is to link what you perceive to be miscarriages of justice with the fact that, as you assert, Paul Rofe doesn't put in 24 hours a day or put in all the hours between 9 and 5.

Graham Archer:

But how can you challenge any case without also bringing into question the action of the prosecution and the courts. And one would expect Michael Abbott to be a bit more tolerant of an investigative media given that he represented Edward Splatt in the Splatt Royal Commission in 1983 which overturned a murder conviction, based on flawed forensic evidence. And that Royal Commission did not occur because the system worked properly, it occurred because the system failed. And it also occurred because the media ran a campaign to say that there had been an injustice. Now what I'm saying to you is here's a challenge. Why not look at the Keogh case? Do you think we would bother to go to this length...

Michael Abbott:

Well, I don't know what motivates you but I know that you're not in Stewart Cockburn's league.

Graham Archer:

Thanks for the reference. I'm just simply sitting here saying to you that there is substantial questions that need answering, now would you be prepared to look at the case?
And there are other QC's who at least historically acknowledge the crucial role of the media when the court systems fail. In this case the media's champion is Marie Shaw QC delivering a speech on behalf of Adelaide's criminal lawyers.

Voice over Marie Shaw:

Mr Splatt was convicted, but a journalist named Stewart Cockburn came to read his correspondence and came to believe in his innocence. He set about publicising the imperfections of the prosecution's case, using the media to expose the unfairness that had occurred during the trial. I have no doubt that but for Mr Cockburn, Mr Splatt would still be in jail.

Graham Archer:

But of course, that was then and this is now and the Society's members are not so generous in advance. But perhaps, that's to be expected.

Michael Abbott:

There are lots of things that irk us in the society in which we live, but they are the rules by which we live.

Paul Rofe:

Well, I'm accountable to the public.

Leigh McClusky:

Graham Archer with that report.

Top of Page