NCA bombing suspect Domenic Perre says case against him is a ‘contradictory narrative’, calls for delay in upcoming trial
Longtime NCA bombing suspect Domenic Perre wants a trial without a jury – but has told a court his case should slow down until prosecutors outline exactly what he’s accused of doing.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- NCA bombing suspect pleads not guilty to murder, attempted murder
- How to get the most out of your Advertiser digital subscription
NCA bombing suspect Domenic Perre has flagged his desire to be tried without a jury – but says the case against him is plagued by “contradictory narratives”.
On Monday, counsel for Perre asked the Supreme Court to delay his arraignment – which is the formal start of the pre-trial process.
Gilbert Aitken, for Perre, said prosecutors had not clearly defined what it was his client had supposedly done to commit the alleged crime, and should do so before the case proceeded.
“There is a need for further and better particulars due to the complexity and voluminous nature of this case … there are more than 150 lever arch folders of evidence,” he said.
“The prosecution case, as it currently stands, compiles what I would characterise as a number of contradictory narratives.
“Do they say Perre was involved in the manufacture of the bomb directly or indirectly?
“That goes right to (the question) of what he’s being tried on, and the evidence that will be led against him.”
Perre, 61, is accused of murdering Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Bowen and attempting to murder lawyer Peter Wallis in the March 2, 1994, explosion on Waymouth St.
He was first arrested nine days after the incident, but the charges were dropped in September 1994 when a prosecutor ruled there was “not a reasonable prospect of conviction”.
He was arrested and charged again in March 20018.
On Monday, Mr Aitken said he had signed instructions that Perre wanted to have a trial without a jury.
Justice David Lovell recommended he “might want to wait” until his objections to the evidence were determined before handing that over.
Mr Aitken agreed, saying he was “very conscious” of protecting his client’s procedural rights, meaning his arraignment should be delayed.
Prosecutor Sandi McDonald SC disagreed.
“He should be arraigned today because, in one sense, it doesn’t matter much – we all know he’s pleading not guilty and this is going to trial,” she said.
“However, I am content to have an argument over whether further and better particulars are needed.”
Justice Lovell remanded Perre in custody until next week, when that argument will be heard – depending on its outcome, the arraignment may then go ahead.