When CCC opinions become findings - truth is the victim

CCC conditions the public mind with half truths.

The Desert Rat's examination of the media statement of Mike Silverstone referred to in the previous post and the Letter to the Editor by Major General Roberts-Smith, highlights both mens' shortcomings.

Do either of these men really understand the role of the agency they head as Commissioner and Executive Director of the Corruption and Crime Commission?

It is about time they understood more about the CCC Act under which they operate.

They appears to be either amateurish and incompetent or off on some political vendetta redolent of the intoxicating effect of having too much power. Read on and decide for yourself.

In Silverstone's opening paragraph in his media statement of 9 October 2007 he says the CCC has found evidence of misconduct against a former minister and others. Silverstone goes on to highlight four findings; against Norm Marlborough, Dr Wally Cox, Mr Paul Frewer and Mr Mike Allen.

No wonder the public regards the CCC opinions (which should be nothing more and nothing less) as findings. Like the police they cannot find any guilty of any offence - it is for the courts to decide.

God only knows what the Desert Rat would find if he had the time to examine all of Silverstone and Roberts-Smiths public comments or if he was allowed to listen to all their private conversations and read their corrospondence. A camera and bug in their respective bedrooms may relieve the humdrum of this tedious research.

Commissioner Major General Roberts-Smith in his letter to the editor of The West Australian 24 February 2009 uses the words opinion and finding interchangeabily. He says:

"It [the CCC] has not formed any opinion (finding) about Mr Grill..."

One would expect a lot more intellectual rigour from a former supreme court judge - maybe he has spent too much time on military tribunals as Judge Advocate.

The CCC can only express an opinion - it cannot make findings. It should never use the word 'found' or 'finding', as they imply a much higher level of authority - that of a tribunal or even court in the minds of most of the public. Any CCC views should properly be expressed as an opinion and sent with any evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Public Sector Commissioner or the relevant authority to inquire into and if there is a case to answer, recommend a course of action such as discipline or prosectution.

Malcolm McCusker QC in his recent John Curtin Institute of Public Policy address lamented the lack of success both he and the CCC have had in educating the public that the CCC can only express opinions - and that it was up to others bodies to make findings of guilt or otherwise.

When material such as the above are fed into the media by Silverstone and Roberts-Smith it is not surprising that the public think of their opinions as findings.

All of the Smiths Beach inquiry opinions above, which are in their public report, have been wrong in fact or law and discredited and all resulting charges to date have been discredited or thrown out of court.