Royal Commission failure on Finn incredible: O'Callaghan

There is nothing that undermines the confidence of the community in its police force and the broader public sector more than the presence or perception of corruption.

Today, millions of dollars are spent a year in proactive and reactive corruption prevention.

Policies, systems, technology, audits, reviews and a commission with extraordinary coercive powers ensure that there is constant vigilance over the ethical health of the public sector. Systemic corruption is extremely rare.

That is not to say that corrupt activity by individuals is not a risk. It remains so and continual investment in its eradication is crucial.

There is no doubt that things were very different in 1975 and the latest revelations about the Shirley Finn homicide have thrown a spotlight on the culture of policing at that time.

In _The Weekend West _, the words in a letter to the editor about the Finn case caught my eye . . . the implication that our political system and law enforcement are so compromised demand thorough investigation.

There is no doubt that recent disclosures in the Shirley Finn case do require thorough investigation but the use of the word are instead of were is, of course, absurd when applied to a matter 40 years old.

The Police Force of 1975 was a place of much less accountability and a limited capacity to implement the levels of accountability we have today.

There were no computers, no electronic recording systems, no automatic vehicle location, no DNA and no Corruption and Crime Commission, to provide a few examples.

Internal investigation matters were conducted without appropriate external oversight. The existence of any of these circumstances today would be untenable.

In such an environment, it is reasonable to look back and question the way business was done and to raise concerns about police corruption and/or involvement in other criminal activity. We also need to understand that most were honest and hardworking police officers and detectives. It is in this context that we return to the Shirley Finn homicide.

Reports in this paper quite rightly point out that there have been rumours besetting this inquiry for the past 40 years and there have been reviews that have led nowhere.

But rumours are not evidence and they get retold and embellished. The truth invariably depreciates with every retelling. In its interim report in 2002, the Kennedy royal commission stated that: "There has for some time been disquiet within the community regarding a number of high-profile matters, the investigations into which have not been satisfactorily concluded by the WAPS . . . including . . . the death of Shirley Finn."

Here was an ideal opportunity for a royal commission with coercive powers to make people give statements to help resolve the case. Yet, despite it highlighting community concerns over the murder, it did not look into it.

The terms of reference were limited to matters occurring after January 1, 1985 by the government of the day, depriving it of the power to inquire into one of the most controversial murder cases in WA history. It could have revealed vital information if it had been allowed to investigate.

Even more curious, it seems, are the current emerging revelations by the shadow attorney-general John Quigley (at the time of the establishment of the royal commission, the Member for Innaloo). He claims he was given disturbing information in the 1990s by a police officer that was suggestive of police involvement in the murder.

Yet, it seems, even with this potentially explosive information he did not try or was unsuccessful in convincing his premier to broaden the terms of the royal commission on such a matter of public importance. It is nothing short of incredible that it was prevented from doing so.

A year after I became Commissioner of Police in 2005 and frustrated with the royal commission's failure to address the matter, I called for another review. Without special powers or co-operation from witnesses, however, it became very difficult.

Despite a plea for witnesses, neither Mr Quigley nor the police officer referred to as "Brian" (to my knowledge) came forward at the time.

"Brian's" testimony could have been made anonymously to the CCC if he feared reprisals.

His recent statement to the CCC may afford new leads but the challenges are much greater now than they might have been 10 years ago.

Some of those who worked on the case have died, others are no longer in a fit mental state to assist with inquiries.

If the Coroner is minded to hold an inquiry into the death of Shirley Finn the WA Police will co-operate fully and enthusiastically. But as time passes there are fewer people who can tell the story, so we need to move fast.

Make no mistake that I would like very much to be able to say that I was the Commissioner of Police who presided over solving this crime.

Neither I, nor those officers tasked with the new Shirley Finn investigation, know (except by name), or have any relationship with the senior detectives who were allocated to this inquiry 40 years ago.

Nor do we have any desire to protect them if they were involved in corrupt or criminal activity.