In 1976, because of public and political misgivings about police manufacturing evidence, the government convened a Committee of Inquiry to probe the ongoing allegations.

Mr Justice Lucas was appointed to  head the inquiry, assisted by Mr Des Sturgess and Chief Superintendent Don Becker.  The report was released the following year.

With his experience and sweeping insight into the criminal justice system, Mr Sturgess was a wise choice.  He enjoyed a reputation for impartiality, a keen intellect and a mastery of law and language.  He made a huge contribution to the report.

The report addressed many matters of concern, the more sensitive being a suspect’s right to silence without adverse inference and the police right to detain a suspect for questioning and search.

The inquiry observed ‘… as a community we frequently expect too much of our police officers.  It is not fair to expect members of the police to break the law to provide an acceptable standard of law enforcement.  On the other hand it has been shown in so many directions that the police are careless in the use of power … the police should be given adequate powers to do their job while at the same time processes must be established to make sure they don’t abuse them.’

The Lucas Report made a number of recommendations (some quite contentious) including the abolition of the right to silence rule and the empowerment of police to stop, question and search persons found in suspicious circumstances.

Recommendations to curb the abuse of police powers were also made, including the use of tape recorders when interviewing suspects. 

According to Mr Sturgess in his book ‘The Tangled Web’, the Bar Association (of which he was a member), generally speaking, was supportive of the Lucas proposals although there were some rumblings about the abolition of the right to silence rule.

The police kept their heads down.

The government, realising it was nursing a hot potato, set up a committee to appraise the recommendations in private.  Their report was never made public.  The Lucas proposals were not acted upon.  They became the casualities of craven politics, self-interested lawyers, lack of police support and public apathy. 

But concern regarding the police ‘verbal’ persisted and there was no chance of it going away without effective remedy.  This stain on police reputation led more and more officers to the conclusion that they should not be expected to take the risk of bending the law, no matter the reason.

The issue continued to niggle and the Police Union became fed up with declamation upon declamation.

In some desperation the Union asked Mr Sturgess to address an on-coming triannual conference (to be attended by delegates from across the state) to explain the full import of the Lucas Report.

He readily agreed and expected a lively reception in that he was on record as saying ‘police debate may turn out to be a robust affair, but it usually makes the point, unlike the hemming and hawing of lawyers’.

Indeed, his address was followed by robust discussion but he persuaded conference members to set up a sub-committee to carefully study all the recommendations.

He called for patient, impartial judgement because he foresaw that some proposals would be quickly agreed upon while unpopular proposals would be rejected just as quickly. 

Over the following months the sub-committee met on several occasions.  Mr Sturgess attended when requested and gave explanation where asked for.

The outcome of all this resulted in the Union President, John Cummins, making a bold public statement backing all recommendations and calling on the government to implement them.

The police change of course provoked outrage on the part of the lawyers.  As Mr Sturgess sadly wrote ‘It indicated that any chance of the police and lawyers working together to achieve a better criminal justice system did not exist and, so far as the lawyers were concerned, anything proposed by the police must now be opposed’.

With this, the Lucas Report gave its last gasp and died.

Posthumously, we again thank Mr Sturgess for his heroic efforts to bring about an improved system of criminal justice and in so doing championing the police cause.