"I AM STILL APPALLED AND SHOCKED AT THE AVOIDING OF ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S PART AND ALSO FROM POLICE."
ANDREW MALLARD: THE AUSTRALIAN NEWS;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian News story ran earlier today under the heading "Andrew Mallard accepts $3.25m for wrongful jailing."
"ANDREW Mallard, who spent 12 years in jail for his wrongful conviction on a murder charge, has accepted a $3.25 million ex-gratia compensation payment from the West Australian Government," the Australian Associated Press story begins;
"He has lodged a Supreme Court writ against 17 defendants, including seven police officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions," the story continues.
"Mr Mallard had pleaded with the WA Government to double the payment after the "take it or leave it" offer was made earlier this month."
"The 48-year-old served 12 years of a 20-year sentence for the 1994 murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence, before his conviction was quashed by the High Court in 2005.
Mr Mallard had sought $7.25 million in compensation before the Government announced its $3.25 million payment, which it described as a "gift".
On May 7, three days after the offer was announced, an emotional Mr Mallard urged the Government to rethink the amount.
He said he did not want to reopen the wounds from the years he spent in jail by fighting for appropriate compensation in a court action.
Deputy Premier Kim Hames today confirmed that Mr Mallard had accepted the offer, and said refusing it "wouldn't have changed any future option that he had".
But Mr Mallard said that in accepting the payment, he had been told the "gift" would be deducted from any future award of damages in the WA Supreme Court.
"It is an inadequate figure but I also need to do this for vindication," Mr Mallard told The West Australian.
"I am still appalled and shocked at the avoiding of any accountability from the Government's part and also from police.
"I have no choice but to accept this money - it is either go down the gurgler or accept what little I have and fight on."
Dr Hames said the compensation had been provided "without any strings attached".
"We provided that as a gift and it was always left open for him to decide whether he would pursue legal action," Dr Hames said.
"If he does that it will be his choice.
"It was going to be in effect a cheque in the mail.
"So if you got a cheque in the mail for just over $3 million I'm sure you wouldn't say no, particularly when there weren't any conditions to (accepting) that amount of money."
Asked if he personally believed it was the right decision, Dr Hames replied: "I think he's made the right decision in not rejecting that money.
"I guess he could have always not cashed the cheque but that wouldn't have changed any future option that he had."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
