Australia: Freedom of information = Freedom FROM information?

What are the police covering up?

Victoria Police has refused to release the criminal record of the man suspected of the brutal murder of two sisters because he is dead and cannot give permission. Police say they do not want to breach the privacy of William John Watkins -- despite the fact he was shot dead days after Colleen and Laura Irwin were fatally stabbed in their Altona North home in January.

The Herald Sun applied to the police Freedom of Information and Privacy Division in February for the criminal history of Watkins, a violent rapist and burglar. Victoria Police refused, citing the Freedom of Information Act.

Acting Supt Lisa McMeeken said in a letter: "As I am unable to ascertain from Mr Watkins his views on the release of such personal information, or gain his consent for the disclosure of the information, I have therefore determined that the release of any criminal history would be an unreasonable disclosure." It adds: "(A section of the FoI Act) serves to continue to protect Watkins' right of personal privacy . . . I do not believe that there are any public interest grounds that require disclosure of any criminal history at this point in time."

Colleen and Laura's father, Allan Irwin, said yesterday the decision to protect Watkins' criminal record was ridiculous. "They know all about us and yet you can't protect your kids against them because you don't know," Mr Irwin said. "It's an absolute joke. You would not want this to ever happen again but the way these people deal with things . . . well, I'd hate to think of it but you'd nearly guarantee it somewhere along the line."

People Against Lenient Sentencing president Steve Medcraft was angered by the police decision. "This is an absolute slap in the face for the family members," Mr Medcraft said. "Give me a shovel and I'll dig Watkins up and ask him myself. "Even though it's too late for Colleen and Laura, there is no reason why that information should be hidden. "The Irwin family's rights should be paramount to anybody else. "They should know the full facts. I find this decision insulting."

The police refusal follows a police edict last year to ban the release of criminals' photographs through FoI after a rapist complained to the privacy commissioner about his mugshot appearing in a newspaper in 2004.

Colleen, 23, and Laura, 21, were found stabbed to death in their blood-splattered flat on January 28. Watkins, their neighbour, allegedly went on the run after the killing and five days later attacked a policeman who had pulled him over on a remote stretch of highway near Karratha in Western Australia. The policeman shot 38-year-old Watkins dead.

Compounding the Irwin family's grief over the double murder was the revelation Watkins was given a short sentence for a rape committed several years before the sisters were stabbed to death.

The Watkins case also sparked calls for the public release of criminals' details in the interest of community safety. The Irwin sisters were apparently unaware of Watkins' criminal past. Privacy Commissioner Paul Chadwick said in February a dead person had no right to privacy under the Victorian Information Privacy Act, but police still refused to release Watkins' criminal history.

The Herald Sun was told to apply through the Victoria Police FoI and Privacy Division, which also claims the release of Watkins' full criminal history could influence pending coronial inquests. But coronial inquests do not involve juries and are decided by a coroner who makes a finding based on evidence presented in court. "The pending inquests will provide a transparent mechanism for the public to be informed of the circumstances surrounding these tragic events," Supt McMeeken said.

Last year, State Ombudsman George Brouwer slammed government agencies for misusing the FoI Act to deny access to information that should be made public. Mr Brouwer said an investigation by his office had uncovered enough evidence to warrant an overhaul of the Victorian FoI Act. He said excessive delays and unnecessary pedantry detracted from open government.

Report here

Another comment:

The extent of William John Watkins' convictions remains shrouded in convoluted privacy laws that, according to Victoria Police, date back to 1982, and effectively allow criminals to dictate terms even from the grave. Watkins remains the only suspect in the frenzied stabbing murder of sisters Colleen and Laura Irwin at Altona North this year. Strong physical evidence linked him to the scene; evidence that had to be forensically matched before an alert was issued. Watkins' guilt will never be tested in court as he is dead -- shot by a West Australian policeman after attacking the officer while on the run.

The Herald Sun has made many attempts to uncover his full criminal history amid debate on the release of criminals' details in the interests of community safety. While it is too late to save the Irwin sisters, it shows the need for people to be made aware of dangerous criminals living in their communities. Arguments by criminals that release of convictions and mugshots might humiliate or endanger them doesn't stack up next to the safety of the innocent.

Victoria Police has refused to provide Watkins' full criminal history under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The refusal is partly based on the fact he can't be asked for permission, therefore his next of kin could appeal against any release. What is more important: the rights of criminals or the rights of decent members of our community? Who deserves more protection? The answer should be obvious.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)