THE Law Society of Tasmania is calling on parliamentarians to rein in the powers of the Integrity Commission and enshrine a witness’s right to silence. Society president Anthony Mihal will give evidence today before an inquiry reviewing the commission’s performance and functions. Mr Mihal said he recognised the need for the commission’s broad investigative powers, but much stricter checks and balances were required. He said the absence of a witness’s right to silence before the Integrity Commission defied Australia’s system of justice. ‘‘The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and defendants ordinarily don’t have to do anything if they choose not to,’’ Mr Mihal said. ‘‘This way, it means that if someone is found guilty we can have confidence it is a fair and just outcome.’’ Mr Mihal said an investigation earlier this year into allegations of nepotism and conflict of interest by senior Tasmanian health bureaucrats had brought serious potential legal concerns to the surface. ‘‘There are people identified in that report who would have been compelled to give evidence,’’ he said. ‘‘There is a potential that if criminal proceedings are brought against those witnesses at a later stage, it might prejudice their defence or give prosecutors an unfair advantage.’’ Mr Mihal said if the inquiry believed it was necessary for the Integrity Commission to have power to strip witnesses of their right to silence, a legitimate and properly articulated reason must be provided. He said failing enshrining the right to silence in the appropriate Act, the Integrity Commission’s coercive powers to compel witnesses should be reviewed. The Society will also lobby for witnesses appearing before the commission to be afforded an unqualified right to legal representation. The inquiry will take place in Hobart this morning.
THE Law Society of Tasmania is calling on parliamentarians to rein in the powers of the Integrity Commission and enshrine a witness’s right to silence.
Law Society of Tasmania president Anthony Mihal
Society president Anthony Mihal will give evidence today before an inquiry reviewing the commission’s performance and functions.
Mr Mihal said he recognised the need for the commission’s broad investigative powers, but much stricter checks and balances were required.
He said the absence of a witness’s right to silence before the Integrity Commission defied Australia’s system of justice.
‘‘The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and defendants ordinarily don’t have to do anything if they choose not to,’’ Mr Mihal said.
‘‘This way, it means that if someone is found guilty we can have confidence it is a fair and just outcome.’’
Mr Mihal said an investigation earlier this year into allegations of nepotism and conflict of interest by senior Tasmanian health bureaucrats had brought serious potential legal concerns to the surface.
‘‘There are people identified in that report who would have been compelled to give evidence,’’ he said.
‘‘There is a potential that if criminal proceedings are brought against those witnesses at a later stage, it might prejudice their defence or give prosecutors an unfair advantage.’’
Mr Mihal said if the inquiry believed it was necessary for the Integrity Commission to have power to strip witnesses of their right to silence, a legitimate and properly articulated reason must be provided.
He said failing enshrining the right to silence in the appropriate Act, the Integrity Commission’s coercive powers to compel witnesses should be reviewed.
The Society will also lobby for witnesses appearing before the commission to be afforded an unqualified right to legal representation.
The inquiry will take place in Hobart this morning.
