Marlon Noble — charges
1075. Hon ALISON XAMON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General:
My question without notice has been given with some notice. By explanation, I originally directed this to the Premier, but the Premier has had to urgently attend the fires at Margaret River and the decision was made to refer this to the Attorney General, so my question is to the parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General.
I refer to the article in today’s The West Australian titled, “Noble’s welfare is key to his release” in which the Premier is quoted as saying, “I don’t know if he offended ... or not and this is one of those issues that no doubt will be delved into.”
(1) Can the Premier tell the house which form or avenue he envisages will be made available to Mr Noble to enable Mr Noble to clear his name?
(2) Is the Premier aware of any moves by the Director of Public Prosecutions to reinstate the original charges against Mr Noble?
(3) Will the Premier support a parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the laying of the original charges and the ongoing incarceration of Mr Noble?
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied:
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney General, I thank the member for some notice of this question. I understand the question was referred to the Attorney General in his capacity as Attorney General.
(1) Mr Marlon Noble came before the District Court in 2002 on two indictments, being —
(a) indictment 1020 of 2002 preferring two offences of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13. Those offences were alleged to have been committed on or about 22 December 2001 against a nine-year-old female child.
(b) indictment 1261 of 2002 preferring three charges of indecent dealing. Each of the offences was alleged to have been committed on 29 December 2001 against a 14- year-old female child.
During the course of proceedings in 2002, it became apparent that a significant issue was whether Mr Noble was fit to stand trial on the indictments. That issue appears to have first been raised in October 2002. The District Court then came to determine that issue and the consequences that flowed from it. The Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act, which is now the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, governed the way in which the question was to be determined and the consequences that flowed from a conclusion that Mr Noble was not fit to stand trial. On a number of dates in early 2003, the last of which was 11 March 2003, the District Court addressed and determined the relevant issues. The District Court considered reports from three psychiatrists. On 7 March 2003, His Honour Judge Nisbet concluded that “A thorough review of the reports of three consultant psychiatrists compels me to the inescapable conclusion that the accused is not fit to stand trial.” Having reached that conclusion, the court was obliged by the act to quash the indictments and decide whether a custody order should be made. Section 19 of the act set out the matters the court had to consider in determining that question. Those matters were —
(a) the strength of the evidence against the accused;
(b) the nature of the alleged offence and the alleged circumstances of its commission;
(c) the accused’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition; and
(d) the public interest.
Having considered all those factors in detail, the District Court delivered reasons on 11 March 2003 for its decision to make a custody order. In determining the issue of the strength of the case against Mr Noble, the District Court concluded that there was evidence capable of sustaining convictions on all the charges, although in accordance with the legislative regime, no conviction was recorded. No appeal against the court’s decisions alleging an error of fact, or of law, or at all, was or has been lodged by Mr Noble or his lawyers and there was no suggestion that Mr Noble’s case was handled otherwise than in accordance with the law. Mr Noble is entitled to pursue all lawful avenues or forums for review of the court’s decisions should he or his lawyers have a contrary view.
(2) No.
(3) There is no suggestion that the laying of the original charges against Mr Noble, the order of the District Court quashing the 2002 indictments, the order of the District Court imposing the custody order or the periodic reviews by the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board were made other than in accordance with the relevant legislation. The government is presently undertaking a review of the provisions and operation of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act and has indicated a commitment to establish a declared place to ensure additional options exist to deal with persons subject to custody orders.