Optimising the inquiry into child sex abuse

Lawyers for suspects

The commission should adopt Justice Jim Woods' procedure at his inquiry into NSW police corruption. He had a small pool of competent – but not the highest-paid – taxpayer-funded lawyers who represented suspects for nothing.

Suspects should of course be free to waste money on their own lawyers.

All relevant evidence to be available

It is obvious to everyone except common lawyers that hiding the truth makes it difficult to find it.

A judge, Harry Gibbs, generally adhered to the rules for concealing evidence at his 1963-64 inquiry into police corruption. His finding – that not one policeman was corrupt – made him the laughing-stock of Queensland. He was made Chief Justice of the High Court in 1981.

One of the rules is legal professional privilege, or client-lawyer secrecy. Or in some cases client-lawyer conspiracy; Philip Marlowe noted in The Long Goodbye: "How long do you think the big-shot mobsters would last if the lawyers didn't show them how to operate?"

A former judge, Terry Cole, inadvertently fell into error at his 2006 inquiry into bribes to Saddam Hussein. He ruled that some Wheat Board documents were covered by legal professional privilege.

Certain clerical and police interests may thus be desperately lobbying common lawyers, including Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon, Tony Abbott, and Julie Bishop, to let inquiry witnesses claim client-lawyer secrecy.

To make it absolutely clear, it would thus be prudent to write into the legislation that NONE of the rules for concealing evidence can apply at the inquiry.

Pre-hearing

Counsel assisting should follow French inquisitorial procedures, That is, the juge builds up a dossier on the suspect.; he gathers evidence, collects documents, hears witnesses, takes depositions, arranges confrontations between conflicted witnesses, including suspect and alleged victim.