Kimber’s current seven year stint comes to an end in April. Our understanding is that the Liberal attorney general Vickie Chapman offered Kimber another seven years but that cabinet said NO, we need to see who else is out there and the position should be advertised. 

A government flack merchant said that Kimber was invited to reapply “but subsequently made a decision not to”. 

By advertising the position the government shows that Kimber doesn’t have its confidence.

The same thing happened to Kimber’s predecessor, Stephen Pallaras, who withdrew after he fell out with the Labor government and told he would need to apply for a further season as DPP. 

InDaily, the Adelaide news website, quoted Pallaras: 

“If they advertise the position when someone’s in the job, it can be taken as a vote of no confidence for the person in the chair. He may be feeling that.” 

Opposition front bencher Tom Koutsantonis said that “effectively the DPP has just been sacked”. 

Maybe Kimber has had enough of the gig, after all politicians and their politics are never far from the door of chief prosecutors, as we saw in the heady days of the stand-off between NSW DPP Nick Cowdery and former attorney general John Hatzistergos. 

One source said that the relationship between the DPP and the SA Police Association “couldn’t be worse”. There had been a couple of disastrous prosecutions of police officers and the DPP also wanted to re-try Henry Keogh, even though the findings of the chief crown witness, Dr Colin Manock, had been discredited.

Too many cases have been prosecuted with slim prospects of successful outcomes and to top it off there has been much disgruntlement among lawyers and staff within the SA Office of the DPP. 

Theodora reported in November 2017 that Kimber resigned his bar membership over a spat about prosecuting bundled-up charges in child sex cases and amendments to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act that followed the High Court decision in the Chiro case.   

SABA president Ian Robertson sent a response to the then Liberal opposition saying: 

“Chiro was a case about an unfair and lazy use of s.50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act by the prosecution … Encouraging charges relying on s.50 tends to encourage easy and, we would argue, unfair prosecutorial tactics … The proposed amendment will, we contend, relieve the prosecution of thinking about what is the appropriate charge. It will encourage inaptness and promote laziness …” 

Nine days later Robertson issued a note to members saying: 

“Unfortunately, pressed for time, I did not give the response the attention it deserved, provoking some criticism from the DPP. I have apologised to the DPP for my lack of care.” 

After being called a lazy prosecutor, Kimber resigned from the bar ‘n’ grill association. Now, if he goes to the private bar in Adelaide he may want to reapply for membership of the SABA where, as immediate past president, Robertson sits on the executive. 

AG Chapman issued a lukewarm farewell to the outgoing chief prosecutor: 

“The job is not an easy one and he achieved quite a lot in his time in the role. I wish Mr Kimber all the best in his future endeavours.” 

Kimber’s Wikipedia entry says he was educated at Saint Ignatius’ College Adelaide where he completed matriculation in 1986 with a score “in the high 400s”. 

Meanwhile, the state’s briefs are making a pitch to the government for a return to the monarchial bauble. 

Never mind the quality, feel the width. 

Chapman says she’s thinking about the submission but at the moment has higher priorities, such as making sure South Australians “have faith in the legal justice system”. 

In Sydney, the government has been making whoopee about the new swag of judicial appointments and more money for the District Court – all done in an effort to get on top of the delays and the towering pile of cases. 

See: Dizzo World and Sin City Snippets 

At the end of 2018 AG Mark Speakman tabled in parliament the 2017-2017 annual report of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

Under the heading “workload”, in relation to the District Court, the report said: 

“In Sydney, trial registrations remained stable with only a small increase of 16 trials (3%) from the previous year (548 to 566). However, substantial resources were expended as a result of an increase in the complexity of trials and in the number of trials with multiple accused and charges. Trials with a duration of longer than ten days increased by 16% on the previous year (107 compared with 92 trials). The average duration of trials that ran to verdict in Sydney was 11.3 days. Overall, this resulted in a decrease of 51 trials (9.9%) completed in comparison with the previous year.” 

So, the court got through 10 percent fewer trials in 2017-2018 than in 2016-2017 and on average trials were slower and longer. 

The mountain that needs to be climbed gets steeper by the day.  

In July 2019 the Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson, was sentenced to 12 months gaol, to serve six months before parole. He was found guilty of concealing the sex crimes of a paedophile priest in the Hunter region, Father James Fletcher – a man who ruined many lives. 

When he was sentenced Wilson insisted he would not resign as archbishop and would apply to serve his time at home.  

The court found that in 1976 alter boys confided in Wilson that they had been sexually abused. Wilson failed to notify the police and later Fletcher was charged with further child sex offences in 2004. 

There was a large community outcry at the sentence and the police minister added to the chorus, saying it was “manifestly insufficient … insulting and … extremely disappointing”.  

Troy Grant told the ABC that the magistrate’s decision had let down the victims and that the sentence was not in accordance with “community expectations” and that six months home detention would be “atrocious”. 

“Politicians play a fundamental role in upholding the key pillar of our democratic society – the rule of law … The Law Society requests, in these circumstances, that Minister Grant respectfully make an immediate correction and apologise to Magistrate Stone.” 

Grant’s apology came five months later: 

“… I now accept accept that my remarks may have had the regrettable effect of casting doubt on the learned magistrate’s professional abilities and application of the law. I have apologised unreservedly to Magistrate Stone for any harm he has sustained and for the hurt and embarrassment suffered as a result of my statements.” 

Between the sentencing and the apology Stone granted the application that the prisoner serve his sentence at the home of his sister on the Central Coast, the archbishop also had resigned his post and Judge Roy Ellis in the District Court upheld his appeal against his conviction. 

At the appeal Stephen Odgers SC argued that Wilson may not have remembered what happened in 2004, he may not have had information about Fletcher that could have assisted police and he may have had a reasonable excuse to withhold the information. 

On December 6, Judge Ellis found that there was a reasonable doubt Wilson had concealed Fletcher’s crimes. 

The appellant was given special permission not to attend court outcome, in order the avoid the media. 

Magistrate’s Stone had doubts about the Wilson’s credibility and that many of his answers were “dissembling and contrived” and he showed no remorse for the cover-up. On the other hand he found the victims to be witnesses of truth. 

Wilson is now suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Ellis found him to be an intelligent, articulate person.  

The upshot is that anyone can give vent if they think a sentencing decision stinks – except for “key pillars of our democratic society”.