The Hon Bob Debus
Dear Mr Debus,
As one of your constituents I would like to know why you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Roseanne Catt's innocence? Also, why are you, as the NSW Attorney General protecting people like Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell by allowing them to get away with what they did to Roseanne and to continually carry on their questionable activities ruining the lives of more innocent NSW victims? Public monies totalling $89,000 was appropriated from the Victims Compensation Board by Barry Catt and still your Police department have done nothing about it.
Before I began this long journey of justice for Roseanne 11 years ago I was just an ordinary working housewife and mother who believed in all things good about our police and justice system. It didn't take me long to find out just how naive I was! There are now hundreds of your constituents on the Blue Mountains, who, like myself feel the same way and expect you to do the right thing by Roseanne. Their signatures and postcodes are contained on the Petition recently put by the Hon Peter Breen MLC at last month's Legislative Council meeting.
The UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights article 9 states:
Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. I would remind you that Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention and Roseanne is entitled to this Right. Once a conviction has been set aside, you are then entitled to the presumption of innocence which is the right of all citizens.
In regard to the two outstanding convictions: The argument is that at the trial on those two charges, there was evidence which went to the credibility of the Crown witnesses which was not disclosed, and upon which the Defendant was unable to cross-examine them. Therefore the convictions should be overturned. This is of course obvious on the face of the record.
In the six convictions which were overturned, it was accepted by the Court that certain witnesses were unreliable and untruthful. Those findings then constitute the grounds upon which the other two convictions should be overturned. If there were common witnesses or if they arose out of common circumstances, then doubt about any one of the charges should lead to doubt about the others. Astonishingly, the Court decided to retain the two convictions on more minor charges, despite the fact that the witnesses to them (Barry Catt, Peter Thomas, Adrian Newell) were the same witnesses who had been discredited in relation to the other charges. Surely you as the Attorney General should have the good sense to see this?
The 6 convictions which no longer exist for Roseanne amount to 12 years 3 months of her sentence. This was the total sentence imposed of which she served 10 years. The remaining two convictions (Counts 3 & 4) were the only convictions for which the time imposed was to be served concurrently with the alleged Rock Incident (Count 1) which has been quashed.
The sentence imposed, for each of these 3 counts, was to be served concurrently: 15 months. All the other sentences were served cumulatively.
If a speedy and positive response is not forthcoming then further procedures will be undertaken to ensure that the law is properly and fairly applied in relation to those outstanding matters.
Mr Debus, I read in the newspaper that you will be retiring soon. As a final humanitarian gesture, I implore you to soften your heart and approve the Petition so that Roseanne, her family and supporters can all get on with our lives.

Mrs Mary Court