Wife of victim hits out at DPP
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18269898%255E2682,00.html
Nigel Hunt. 26feb06
THE wife of the man killed by lawyer Eugene McGee in a hit-run crash has accused Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras of being "insensitive and disrespectful" to victims of crime.
Diana Gilcrist-Humphrey, whose husband Ian Humphrey was killed while cycling on Kapunda Rd, near Freeling, is seeking an apology from Mr Pallaras QC, following a speech he gave to a Commonwealth Club lunch on February 15 which contained comments about the case.
Ms Gilcrist-Humphrey has also written to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson asking him to consider disciplinary action against Mr Pallaras.
In the letter, obtained by the Sunday Mail, Ms Gilcrist-Humphrey says Mr Pallaras's "cavalier remarks cannot go unchallenged".
"The content of this speech demonstrated a distinct lack of sensitivity and respect for victims of crime – in particular the crime that led to the death of my husband," she states.
"These remarks have betrayed the integrity of his office".
In his speech, Mr Pallaras gave a tongue-in-cheek summary of the controversy that has surrounded his appointment and his subsequent time as DPP.
It included comments about the Kapunda Road Royal Commission, held in response to the public outcry over the sentence handed out to McGee.
"Next, I might say, what a curious idea it was to have a Royal Commission in relation to the part played by the DPP in a well-known case and, when it was over with no adverse findings to the office, say 'I told you so'," Mr Pallaras said in his speech.
In his findings, Royal Commissioner Greg James QC was critical of the DPP in several areas over its handling of the McGee trial.
Ms Gilcrist-Humphrey said she failed "to comprehend how Mr Pallaras considered it appropriate to make such a statement".
"My copy of the Royal Commission report clearly identifies a number of errors made by the office of the DPP," she states.
"I fail to see that Mr Pallaras's confrontational attitude is serving the needs of his office or his clients.
"I consider it would be most advantageous if the current DPP made a concerted effort to appropriately represent the public in the administration of justice.
"Fundamental to this is the need for Mr Pallaras to ensure that all comments have a factual basis and are in no way going to cause undue distress to victims of crime."
Mr Pallaras was unaware of the letter until contacted by the Sunday Mail yesterday, declining to comment "until I have seen its contents".
Mr Atkinson said he would "seek an explanation" from Mr Pallaras.
Ms Gilcrist-Humphrey said she had not sent a copy of her letter to Mr Pallaras.
"He does not respond to my correspondence anymore, so it's a waste of time sending any to him," she said.