Analysis: A long road to justice in the NCA bombing case
TO many, the NCA bombing appears to be an open and shut case, but justice for murdered NCA detective Geoffrey Bowen has been a long time coming.
TO many observers, the NCA bombing appears to be an open and shut case.
For just over two decades the seemingly damning evidence against Domenic Perre has been in the public arena and yet the case remains unsolved.
Justice for murdered NCA Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Bowen and severely injured lawyer Peter Wallis has not been delivered.
Nor has the suffering of their respective families been stemmed by some sense of finality – they are still living through their nightmare.
They have experienced many disappointments over the past 22½ years. Putting aside their horrific loss and lasting injury, they have seen Perre arrested, charged and committed for trial, only to then see the criminal charges against Perre withdrawn.
They have had to anxiously await the results of several reviews of the investigation, only to see them, so far, come up empty-handed.
And in the middle of this was then-coroner Wayne Chivell’s inquest that delivered its bombshell finding in late 1999.
It is fair to say his finding left many scratching their heads as they attempted to reconcile the contradictions it presented.
Mr Chivell pulled absolutely no punches when he stated he believed Detective Sgt Bowen died as a result of injuries inflicted “when he opened a parcel bomb, sent to him by Domenic Perre, and the bomb exploded in his hands.”
If this was the case, why then did former Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe, QC, withdraw murder and attempted murder charges against Mr Perre some five years earlier, stating that he did not believe there was enough evidence to secure a conviction?
Many felt the prosecution should have been relaunched after the inquest findings. Those with this view included Detective Sgt Bowen’s widow, Jane Bowen-Sutton.
The reality is however, it is just not that simple. A coroner’s court is a world away from the Supreme Court. One is essentially a civil procedure, the other criminal and different evidentiary rules apply.
The key difference is the burden of proof. A much higher threshold is required in a criminal court than in coronial proceedings.
And an inquest is not bound by the rules of evidence and can take hearsay evidence into account – as opposed to a criminal court.
In all likelihood, chunks of the evidence heard during the inquest into the NCA bombing may be ruled inadmissable in criminal proceedings for a variety of reasons.
Paul Rofe knew the strength of the admissible evidence when he reluctantly withdrew the charges against Perre. His successor Stephen Pallaras, QC, also knew this when he was asked to review the case file and current DPP Adam Kimber, SC, who has also reviewed the file, certainly knows this. Both concurred with Mr Rofe’s view of the available evidence.
For this reason alone, it is clear any prosecution in connection with the murder of Geoffrey Bowen and attempted murder of Peter Wallis will revolve around new evidence not heard at the 1999 inquest.
That is precisely what the detectives conducting Task Force Cornus have been painstakingly compiling – quite successfully – for the past 13 months.
It is now clear there were a number of people involved in the bombing. It is now clear others had knowledge of the plot and were less than forthcoming during the initial investigation. They are clearly now in the crosshairs and will be nervous.
But perhaps most importantly, advances in forensic technology will play a significant role in any new prosecution in this case.
If detectives already have a partial DNA profile of the offenders, it is more than likely the specialist laboratory in the Netherlands will develop these into full profiles and provide crucial pieces of new evidence.
Just as such technology played a key role in the current Louise Bell murder prosecution, it will star in any new prosecution of those responsible for this long-running case.