Sent: Tuesday, 20 September 2005 18:30
To: Attorney General
Subject: NSW ATTORNEY GENERAL - RE: ROSEANNE CATT APPEAL

NSW Attorney General

Dear Mr Debus,

ROSEANNE CATT APPEAL

    It is now over a month since the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) upheld the appeal of Roseanne Catt against six of her eight convictions. Ms Catt is, after more than sixteen years and an additional four weeks, still awaiting the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).  This current situation is intolerable. 

    We ask you, as a matter of urgency, to contact Nicholas Cowdery, DPP asking him to come to the only responsible decision - that the DPP will not be proceeding with a new trial.  Mr Cowdery needs to do the right thing and let Ms Catt and her family get on with their lives.
    The reasons against the DPP wasting further tax-payer funds for a new trial are contained in the CCA Judgement of 17 August, 2005.
   Para 234:  In relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 Justice McClellan
stated
"...I am satisfied the convictions should be quashed..."  He further stated
that

"...it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and
not this Court to determine whether a new trial should take place".  In the
same paragraph he continues,

"...(a new trial) must be balanced with the fact that fresh trials would occasion significant expense and it would be unlikely that any further term of imprisonment would be required to be served, even if convictions were entered on all charges..."
   Para 235:  "In the circumstances the appellant should remain on bail
pending the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether to
proceed with any fresh trial".

    Respectfully, I submit, there are many serious reasons contained within the body of the CCA Judgement as to why the DPP should abandon consideration of a new trial and allow Ms Catt, after a 16 year ordeal, to resume her life as a NSW citizen.

    The DPP no longer have a case against Ms Catt because the CCA Judgement acknowledges that Ms Catt was the victim of a conspiracy involving Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell.The Judgement further states that Peter Thomas had the propensity to threaten and intimidate in order to get witnesses to say what he wanted.  The collusion throughout the Davidson Inquiry is captured in the hundreds of telephone calls Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell made to each other even though they were repeatedly ordered by Justice Davidson not to communicate with each other while
they were giving their evidence. 

    Judge Davidson asked for these to be investigated by the DPP and the NSW Police but as far as we are aware this has not been done.  

    This is very serious and I request that your office ascertain and advise on the status of these investigations.  Some of the other very significant reasons why the DPP should abandon any thought of a new trial can be found in the CCA Judgement in the following paragraphs:
105, 109, 121, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136.

    Still further reasons as to why there should be no new trial follow:
 * Ms Catt's 12 years, 3 months sentence was completed almost two
years ago.
 * Millions of tax-payer dollars have already been spent on the 18 month Davidson Inquiry ordered by the CCA.
 * Crown witnesses no longer have any credibility.  (See Judgement of Judge Davidson and CCA Judgement).
 * It is 16 years since Peter Thomas invaded the home of Ms Catt turning the lives of herself, her family and friends into a living nightmare.
 * Ms Catt has already been incarcerated for a period of 10 years.
 * A number of witnesses have since died.
 * Witnesses' accounts of events after 16 years would be unreliable.
 * Some of the Crown witnesses such as Peter Thomas, James Morris and others, said at this Inquiry they have no memory of events in 1989.
 * Peter Thomas and Adrian Newell were both referred to the DPP during the Inquiry for potential contempt proceedings.
 * Documents and/or parts of documents have gone missing.
 * The length of time a new trial may take.
 * A new trial would be a huge expense one could not justify to the tax-payer.
 * It is four years since Ms Catt has been released.
 * The appellant's acquittal of the possession of gun charges and her
 successful appeal on the lithium charge both depend on a finding that there is a strong possibility that she was the victim of a conspiracy. 
    This would of course be used in any trial.  In addition, Judge Cooper found in
the Brackemonte matter in 1991 that Thomas would readily fabricate
evidence.
 * It is my understanding that there is no legal precedent for a new trial as the appellant has already served her sentence.

    While it may not seem a serious matter to the DPP, the placing of Roseanne Catt on bail while she waits for a decision has placed her under unbearable pressure.  Surely by this time your Government should say she should be allowed to get on with her life. 

    It is an extremely serious matter for a person to spend 10 years in prison for offences of which they have now been acquitted.
Nobody has apologised to Roseanne for this.  Roseanne Catt maintains her innocence of all charges. Judge Davidson who conducted the 18 month Inquiry found there was sufficient evidence to recommend all charges be quashed.  The CCA agreed with Judge Davidson's findings but from the material they had before them they came to the conclusion Peter Thomas did not have any involvement in the two remaining counts.  At the time of Ms Catt's trial all charges were run together.

    After 10 months of assimilating a huge amount of evidence, tendered over an 18 month Inquiry presided over by Justice Davidson, who recommended all convictions were unsafe and should be quashed, the decision was made by the CCA to quash six of the eight charges.  The CCA recognised that Peter Thomas was directly involved in each of the six counts. 

    Ms Catt was acquitted on Count 9 - "The Gun".  Thomas used the gun as a pivotal point to destroy the character of Ms Catt and did so in order to make the other charges he had placed on her more 'credible'.  Thomas built his case around the gun.

    Mr Debus, we rely on you to immediately resolve this intolerable situation.
Both the Davidson Inquiry Judgement and that of the CCA state that if the jury at the original trial in 1991 had before them the evidence that is now available, Ms Catt would have been acquitted. 

    So why is it that the DPP given the evidence now at hand, continue to deny Ms Catt the vindication she so rightly deserves?

    The Judgement delivered by the CCA on the 17th August 2005 has raised very serious doubts as to the credibility of Peter Thomas, Barry Catt and Adrian Newell, so serious that there should no longer be a cloud hanging over Ms Catt.  The evidence is on public record for all to see.  Again, I repeat, the current situation is intolerable.  We have been waiting for four weeks on the DPP's decision, and we are relying on your office, the Department of the Attorney General, to resolve this matter immediately.

    The media, while being given both the Davidson Inquiry Judgement and the CCA Judgement, have not revealed to the public that these Judgements very clearly agree with what Ms Catt was saying all along - that she was "the victim of a conspiracy".

    If this matter cannot be resolved, as a matter of urgency I request a meeting with you.

Sincerely,
Mrs Mary Court on behalf of
Justice4Roseanne team and Ms Catt's many supporters throughout
Australia.


Cc:  NSW Governor, Her Excellency, Professor Marie Bashir AC
Cc:  The Hon. Premier, Morris Iemma
Cc:  Mrs Marianne Saliba MP, Local Member, Illawarra

Reply from the Attorney General