December 4, 2024 • 11 mins
Graeme Goodings speaks with Shadow Police Minister Jack Batty, Victims’ Rights advocate Michael O’Connell and Former DPP Stephen Pallaras on Acting Police Commissioner Linda Williams asking for the DPP to consider appealing the suspended sentence of Raina Jane Cruise.
Listen live on the FIVEAA Player.
Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, Police say Pole in fact is asking for a
review of the suspended sentence handed to a woman who
scalped a pregnant police officer. They cite the court penalty
sends the wrong message. Police will ask the Director of
Public Prosecutions to consider appealing the suspended sentence of Rayner.
Jane Cruz. Now she was the woman the anti vaxer,
who was under the influence of alcohol attacked three people
(00:22):
while consumed by rage. The first victims were two hotel
security guards, one of whom she punched in the windpipe.
The third was a pregnant police officer who she scalped.
She has been given a suspended sentence. On breakfast this morning,
David and Will got the reaction from Attorney General Kaiam.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Maher earlier this morning. I we'd ask the DPP to
provide some advice, particularly in relation to the potential appeal. Yeah,
courts make decisions, and you have single judges sitting alone,
make decisions that are routinely appealed, make a decision based
on what they've seen before them. But then there are
(01:01):
dozens of appeals of DPP lodgers every single year, about
half of them are successful. So we've asked for that
information about bludging the appeal. I can understand your listeners concerned.
I think every single one of us owes a great.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Deal of respect to the police who put.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Their life on the line every day they go out
for the rest of us, and as lawmakers, I think
we have a particular duty to make sure their are
fakes as they can be. So we've already asked this
morning for the DVP to have a look at and
provide some advice on the prospects of an appeal of.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
This cent Wayde Burns from the Police Union also spoke
to David and.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Will absolutely this sentence thing that we've seen is a
complete letdown to all police officers at a time of
a police recruitment and retention crisis. It is completely unreasonable
that our members go to work get assaulted and the
offenders have no penalty.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Acting Police Commissioner Linda Williams says the suspended sentence was
not in line with the community these standards and had to
stressed rank and file police officers. There is widespread community outrage.
Join men now is Shadow Minister for Police and Community Safety,
Jack Batty. Jack, good morning to you, Good morning, what
is your reaction to the suspended sentence, Well.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
I think it sends the totally wrong message. Violence and
abuse directed at police officers is never acceptable. We've seen
some really disturbing increases in assaults on police over the
last couple of years, and I think we need to
do a whole lot more to protect those that protect us.
So when we see this case involving a violent assault
(02:39):
against a pregnant police officer and a suspended sentence being received,
I think it sends the totally wrong message. No one
should get away with assaulting a police officer, and I
think the attorney should step in and make sure the
appropriate penalties are applied.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Now the court has the ability to impose a far
greater sentence the crime committed. Why do you think they
come in at the lower end in many many cases.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
Yeah, the former Liberal government took strong action on issues
involving assaults on police. In fact, we created a specific
offense of assaulting a police officer carrying quite tough penalties.
I think it's up for this government now to step
in and make sure that tough penalties are applied.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Jack Betty, thanks so much of your time. Michael O'Connell.
Are victims of Crime advocate joins me, Michael, what do
you make of the suspended sentence?
Speaker 6 (03:36):
Well, I think the sentence is and an outrage, and
the views expressed by the Attorney General, the Shadow Minister
as well as other people rightly reflects that the sentence
such as this, it's likely to shadow the public confidence
in the justice system. And that's the key consideration. The
(03:56):
Parliament's already enacted laws. That's the maximum penalty for these
types of assaults that five, ten or fifteen years, depending
on the harm that has been done, and I would
suggest that this is in the higher level of category
of harm, having some police officer sculpt as a very
serious offense. It's pertinent to note that in South Australia,
(04:18):
unlike many other places in Australia and indeed the world,
the actual victim herself in this case can directly ask
the DPP to review the case and consider whether or
not an appeal should be launched. The outrage that I've
seen unheard this morning just reminds me of the Nima case,
and in that particular situation it reached the point where
(04:41):
the Attorney General had to intervene and direct the DPP
to lotion and appeal. Let's hope we don't get to
that stage, but at least we do know in terms
of public confidence that there is that all turns is
available in our law.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Michael O'Connor, thank you for your time. That's Michael O'Connor
from the Victims of Crime and joining you, and now
is former DPP Stephen Polaris. Stephen, good morning, Thanks for your.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Time, Good morning, you're welcome.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
How do you assess the situation and the suspended sentence
as it's been put forward to us?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
I think there are two issues here, and Michael has
just touched on the second one. The first issue, of course,
is whether the penalty. It's the crime, and I don't
think anybody would suggest that in these circumstances where she's
first of all seriously attacked police officers, that she should
go without a penalty of some sort, and I certainly
(05:35):
agree with those who've spoken about the inadequacy of the penalty. However,
there's a second issue, and that's the one that mister
O'Connor just raised, and that is when one of your
guests has said that the ag should step in and
make sure appropriate penalties are applied. I do not agree
with that, because the Age is not responsible for ensuring
(05:58):
penalties a plan. That is the function of the judiciary
and the DPP, and people have forgotten this is independent
of political ought to be independent of political interference. The DPP, certainly,
I think, should appeal this case, but not at the
(06:20):
direction either of the Attorney General or the Police Commissioner.
So to sum up, this is a very poor sentence.
It ought to be it ought to be appealed by
the DPP, but not on the basis that they're going
to be directed to do so, either by the police
or by the Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
So what you're suggesting it's out of character for say
Paul to ask for a review.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
No, no, they're entitledly, no no, no, no, no, you
just understand they are entitled, and I would have thought
everyone would have been disappointed. But they're entitled to make
a complaint about the penalty and they're entitled to make
that submission to the director. But when it's suggested that
the entitlement goes further than that, and that, for instance,
(07:06):
with the Age, that he should step in and make
sure that the penalty is appropriate, that's not his role
in my view. That's why we have an independent Director
of Public Prosecutions who I say also should look at
this sentence and appeal it. I agree with that position,
it's just on what basis this appeal is going to
(07:27):
be made. It should be made on the basis that
the DPP says this is inadequate, we will appeal it.
It should not be made on the basis that he's
told to do so, either by the police or by
the Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
What upsets many members of the community. And you know,
we're just by standards in this matter. There are penalties
that are available to the court, and it seems that
in most cases the penalties at the lower end. And
people still say, you know, if a conviction, for example,
(08:01):
could be for five years and like it a six
month suspended sentence, you know, why do we always come
in at the lower end.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Well, that's a pretty general statement. I don't think I
can make it a comment about that. Accept it's up
to the individual judge to assess each case separately that
comes before him or her. This is a good example.
I would have thought that most people probably would think
the same that this penalty has come in way too
particularly the scenes that given one report in the newspaper.
(08:28):
I'm not sure whether it's accurate enough that one report
suggests she had that this conduct was in breach of
a good behavior bond that she was already on. In
other words, she'd been given an opportunity to avoid a conviction,
she's placed on a good behavior bond, and then she assaults. Now,
if that's the case, then this penalty is way too low.
(08:48):
And as I've said several times, I would have thought
that the director would appeal the sentence, but because he decides,
because that's his function, not because he's told by the
Attorney General or by the police to do so.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
The district court judge in sentencing said Cruz had lived
through the deaths of a brother, best friend, husband, mother,
and infant son, the latter of which directly informed her crime.
Is that too much weight often put on these extenuating circumstances.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Is it often put on too much weight? Go I
suppose that the court is charged with listening to all
of the circumstances of the case. It's appropriate that they
be raised. But what then becomes a question of judgment
is how much weight you place on those when you're
determining the final punishment. And although what this woman has
(09:41):
suffered has been quite terrible in its own right. In
my judgment, and it's only my judgment, I wouldn't have
thought that that justifies in any sense the penalty that
has been given. That it is patently far too light.
And as I say, it's right that the police that
are upset, and it's right that the victims that are upset,
(10:04):
But that does not therefore say that they should be
determined determining what the what the excuse me? What the
DPP does. That's his function and we shouldn't start interfering
with the functions of an independent officer.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
What's the process if it goes back to the DPP.
To what depth does the DPP go into all the
evidence that was presented at the trial?
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, given the magistrate's court, there's unlikely to be a
transcript of exactly what was said. So he will rely
on the prosecutor who attended the court or if it
was a police prosecutor, the file that the police had
to examine as best he can the judgment made by
(10:50):
the magistrate. Now he may do that himself, or he
may give it to a senior prosecutor to examine and
then they make a judgment as to whether or not
what's said in that judgment by the magistrate makes legal sense,
and again, as I say to me, it doesn't. But
that's a decision that we made, either by a senior
(11:11):
prosecutor under the director or by the director himself.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Stephen Palaris, thank you so much for your time. Former
DPP
Well, Police say Pole in fact is asking for a
review of the suspended sentence handed to a woman who
scalped a pregnant police officer. They cite the court penalty
sends the wrong message. Police will ask the Director of
Public Prosecutions to consider appealing the suspended sentence of Rayner.
Jane Cruz. Now she was the woman the anti vaxer,
who was under the influence of alcohol attacked three people
(00:22):
while consumed by rage. The first victims were two hotel
security guards, one of whom she punched in the windpipe.
The third was a pregnant police officer who she scalped.
She has been given a suspended sentence. On breakfast this morning,
David and Will got the reaction from Attorney General Kaiam.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Maher earlier this morning. I we'd ask the DPP to
provide some advice, particularly in relation to the potential appeal. Yeah,
courts make decisions, and you have single judges sitting alone,
make decisions that are routinely appealed, make a decision based
on what they've seen before them. But then there are
(01:01):
dozens of appeals of DPP lodgers every single year, about
half of them are successful. So we've asked for that
information about bludging the appeal. I can understand your listeners concerned.
I think every single one of us owes a great.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Deal of respect to the police who put.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Their life on the line every day they go out
for the rest of us, and as lawmakers, I think
we have a particular duty to make sure their are
fakes as they can be. So we've already asked this
morning for the DVP to have a look at and
provide some advice on the prospects of an appeal of.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
This cent Wayde Burns from the Police Union also spoke
to David and.
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Will absolutely this sentence thing that we've seen is a
complete letdown to all police officers at a time of
a police recruitment and retention crisis. It is completely unreasonable
that our members go to work get assaulted and the
offenders have no penalty.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Acting Police Commissioner Linda Williams says the suspended sentence was
not in line with the community these standards and had to
stressed rank and file police officers. There is widespread community outrage.
Join men now is Shadow Minister for Police and Community Safety,
Jack Batty. Jack, good morning to you, Good morning, what
is your reaction to the suspended sentence, Well.
Speaker 5 (02:15):
I think it sends the totally wrong message. Violence and
abuse directed at police officers is never acceptable. We've seen
some really disturbing increases in assaults on police over the
last couple of years, and I think we need to
do a whole lot more to protect those that protect us.
So when we see this case involving a violent assault
(02:39):
against a pregnant police officer and a suspended sentence being received,
I think it sends the totally wrong message. No one
should get away with assaulting a police officer, and I
think the attorney should step in and make sure the
appropriate penalties are applied.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Now the court has the ability to impose a far
greater sentence the crime committed. Why do you think they
come in at the lower end in many many cases.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
Yeah, the former Liberal government took strong action on issues
involving assaults on police. In fact, we created a specific
offense of assaulting a police officer carrying quite tough penalties.
I think it's up for this government now to step
in and make sure that tough penalties are applied.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Jack Betty, thanks so much of your time. Michael O'Connell.
Are victims of Crime advocate joins me, Michael, what do
you make of the suspended sentence?
Speaker 6 (03:36):
Well, I think the sentence is and an outrage, and
the views expressed by the Attorney General, the Shadow Minister
as well as other people rightly reflects that the sentence
such as this, it's likely to shadow the public confidence
in the justice system. And that's the key consideration. The
(03:56):
Parliament's already enacted laws. That's the maximum penalty for these
types of assaults that five, ten or fifteen years, depending
on the harm that has been done, and I would
suggest that this is in the higher level of category
of harm, having some police officer sculpt as a very
serious offense. It's pertinent to note that in South Australia,
(04:18):
unlike many other places in Australia and indeed the world,
the actual victim herself in this case can directly ask
the DPP to review the case and consider whether or
not an appeal should be launched. The outrage that I've
seen unheard this morning just reminds me of the Nima case,
and in that particular situation it reached the point where
(04:41):
the Attorney General had to intervene and direct the DPP
to lotion and appeal. Let's hope we don't get to
that stage, but at least we do know in terms
of public confidence that there is that all turns is
available in our law.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Michael O'Connor, thank you for your time. That's Michael O'Connor
from the Victims of Crime and joining you, and now
is former DPP Stephen Polaris. Stephen, good morning, Thanks for your.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Time, Good morning, you're welcome.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
How do you assess the situation and the suspended sentence
as it's been put forward to us?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
I think there are two issues here, and Michael has
just touched on the second one. The first issue, of course,
is whether the penalty. It's the crime, and I don't
think anybody would suggest that in these circumstances where she's
first of all seriously attacked police officers, that she should
go without a penalty of some sort, and I certainly
(05:35):
agree with those who've spoken about the inadequacy of the penalty. However,
there's a second issue, and that's the one that mister
O'Connor just raised, and that is when one of your
guests has said that the ag should step in and
make sure appropriate penalties are applied. I do not agree
with that, because the Age is not responsible for ensuring
(05:58):
penalties a plan. That is the function of the judiciary
and the DPP, and people have forgotten this is independent
of political ought to be independent of political interference. The DPP, certainly,
I think, should appeal this case, but not at the
(06:20):
direction either of the Attorney General or the Police Commissioner.
So to sum up, this is a very poor sentence.
It ought to be it ought to be appealed by
the DPP, but not on the basis that they're going
to be directed to do so, either by the police
or by the Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
So what you're suggesting it's out of character for say
Paul to ask for a review.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
No, no, they're entitledly, no no, no, no, no, you
just understand they are entitled, and I would have thought
everyone would have been disappointed. But they're entitled to make
a complaint about the penalty and they're entitled to make
that submission to the director. But when it's suggested that
the entitlement goes further than that, and that, for instance,
(07:06):
with the Age, that he should step in and make
sure that the penalty is appropriate, that's not his role
in my view. That's why we have an independent Director
of Public Prosecutions who I say also should look at
this sentence and appeal it. I agree with that position,
it's just on what basis this appeal is going to
(07:27):
be made. It should be made on the basis that
the DPP says this is inadequate, we will appeal it.
It should not be made on the basis that he's
told to do so, either by the police or by
the Attorney General.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
What upsets many members of the community. And you know,
we're just by standards in this matter. There are penalties
that are available to the court, and it seems that
in most cases the penalties at the lower end. And
people still say, you know, if a conviction, for example,
(08:01):
could be for five years and like it a six
month suspended sentence, you know, why do we always come
in at the lower end.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Well, that's a pretty general statement. I don't think I
can make it a comment about that. Accept it's up
to the individual judge to assess each case separately that
comes before him or her. This is a good example.
I would have thought that most people probably would think
the same that this penalty has come in way too
particularly the scenes that given one report in the newspaper.
(08:28):
I'm not sure whether it's accurate enough that one report
suggests she had that this conduct was in breach of
a good behavior bond that she was already on. In
other words, she'd been given an opportunity to avoid a conviction,
she's placed on a good behavior bond, and then she assaults. Now,
if that's the case, then this penalty is way too low.
(08:48):
And as I've said several times, I would have thought
that the director would appeal the sentence, but because he decides,
because that's his function, not because he's told by the
Attorney General or by the police to do so.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
The district court judge in sentencing said Cruz had lived
through the deaths of a brother, best friend, husband, mother,
and infant son, the latter of which directly informed her crime.
Is that too much weight often put on these extenuating circumstances.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Is it often put on too much weight? Go I
suppose that the court is charged with listening to all
of the circumstances of the case. It's appropriate that they
be raised. But what then becomes a question of judgment
is how much weight you place on those when you're
determining the final punishment. And although what this woman has
(09:41):
suffered has been quite terrible in its own right. In
my judgment, and it's only my judgment, I wouldn't have
thought that that justifies in any sense the penalty that
has been given. That it is patently far too light.
And as I say, it's right that the police that
are upset, and it's right that the victims that are upset,
(10:04):
But that does not therefore say that they should be
determined determining what the what the excuse me? What the
DPP does. That's his function and we shouldn't start interfering
with the functions of an independent officer.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
What's the process if it goes back to the DPP.
To what depth does the DPP go into all the
evidence that was presented at the trial?
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, given the magistrate's court, there's unlikely to be a
transcript of exactly what was said. So he will rely
on the prosecutor who attended the court or if it
was a police prosecutor, the file that the police had
to examine as best he can the judgment made by
(10:50):
the magistrate. Now he may do that himself, or he
may give it to a senior prosecutor to examine and
then they make a judgment as to whether or not
what's said in that judgment by the magistrate makes legal sense,
and again, as I say to me, it doesn't. But
that's a decision that we made, either by a senior
(11:11):
prosecutor under the director or by the director himself.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Stephen Palaris, thank you so much for your time. Former
DPP
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.