Legislative Council
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE: Justice for Dawn Rowan
August 1st, 2007
On the 1st of August, Mark Parnell asked the Minister for Police a question about justice for Dawn Rowan.
The Hon. M. PARNELL: Twenty years ago, the Christies Beach Women's Shelter was shut down by the state government. This followed the publication by a review committee appointed by the then minister for community welfare, Dr Cornwall, of a report entitled `Shelters in the Storm' and the subsequent tabling of that report in the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament on 11 August 1987. The report contained a list of unsubstantiated allegations primarily aimed at Dawn Rowan, who was the shelter's manager.
Despite being grossly defamed in this discredited report, Dawn Rowan and the Christies Beach Shelter were cleared by subsequent investigations by SA Police, the Ombudsman and a parliamentary select committee. Attempting to restore her reputation, Dawn Rowan fought for justice through the courts, with the South Australian Supreme Court finding overwhelmingly in her favour. Yet, despite being overwhelming vindicated and winning her main action (while representing herself in court against a line-up of seven top barristers), she is about to be bankrupted.
The commonwealth and state governments are now pursuing her for legal costs for a small part of the action that was overturned on appeal, whilst the perpetrators of the original injustice will not suffer personally in any way. While the commonwealth government is the primary party to the bankruptcy action, the state government has chosen to join it. The bankruptcy hearing is next due to be held on 24 August 2007, and Dawn Rowan is facing the shattering prospect of losing her family home. My questions to the minister are:
1. Why is the South Australian government perpetuating the injustice to Dawn Rowan which began in 1987?
2. What message does it send to the community when a citizen can be grossly defamed by the state yet still be treated so unjustly?
Answer: The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police): I will refer those questions to the Attorney-General and bring back a reply, as this matter obviously comes within his jurisdiction. I am not aware of the current situation in relation to any court case against Ms Rowan, although I am aware that at some stage we incorporated a statement or declined to do so—I cannot remember which—in relation to her particular action.
An honourable member: We did.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We did, yes. That is right, we did incorporate it, but it was some years ago now. I will refer the question to the Attorney.
On Tuesday 26th of February 2008, the Minister for Police, Hon Paul Holloway provided an answer to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning): The Attorney-General has provided this information:
Ms Rowan issued proceedings against 13 parties, including the state of South Australia, Dr Cornwall and six other individually named defendants. She was ultimately unsuccessful against 11 of those parties, including the state of South Australia, succeeding only against Dr Cornwall and one of the other individually named state defendants.
There were four separate stages to the proceedings: the initial Supreme Court action, an appeal by the defendants and a cross-appeal by Ms Rowan to the Full Supreme Court, an application by Ms Rowan for leave to appeal to the High Court, and a further application by Ms Rowan in the Full Supreme Court arguing that the Full Supreme Court decision should be overturned owing to bias.
Ms Rowan was successful in the first stage to the proceedings only, and then ultimately against only two of the 13 parties.
The bankruptcy proceedings against Ms Rowan were initiated in the Federal Magistrates Court by the commonwealth to recover its costs. The commonwealth's claim for costs amounted to $380,000 and related only to the proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia (at first instance and on appeal).
The commonwealth had the carriage of the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court as petitioning creditor and obtained a sequestration order against Ms Rowan's estate on 28 September 2007.
That Ms Rowan was partly successful against the state for wrongs done to her, yet has recently been bankrupted, is not the direct result of any action on the part of the state. She has been paid substantial damages by the state and the state has reached agreement and substantially met her claim for costs. Ms Rowan's case has been the subject of a fully transparent trial in the courts including on all cost questions.
The real causes of Ms Rowan's predicament are twofold.
First, Ms Rowan sued defendants against whom she was unsuccessful and who therefore became legitimately entitled to recover their costs from her.
Secondly, Ms Rowan then proceeded with unsuccessful applications, namely, to the High Court and seeking to overturn the Supreme Court decision owing to bias, as a consequence of which she became liable for the further costs of all other parties to those applications.
printer friendly version |
