 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Is everyone ready? Thank you. The Queensland Police Service has closed its investigation into the murder of Leanne Holland following a review of the case that supported the initial case against Mr Graham Stafford. The review, which was announced in May 2010, was undertaken by some of the Queensland Police Service's most experienced detective and was overviewed by an experienced detective from New South Wales Police and the Crime and Misconduct Commission. A number of new pieces of forensic and other evidence were identified during the review, and these were strongly consistent with the initial police case. The investigation was extensive and far-reaching, including addressing the issues raised in a book written about the case by Mr Graham Crowley. The Queensland Police Service referred the findings of the review to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, in March 2010, had decided that, although a jury could convict Mr Graham Stafford of the murder, it was not in the public interest to prosecute a new trial for reasons, including the fact that Mr Stafford had served his sentence and nearly 20 years had passed since the offense occurred, and that had adversely affected some of the evidence. The DPP has considered all of the material and the Queensland Police Service respects his decision that there is no public interest in now retrying the case. The Queensland Police Service is confident that unless new admissible evidence comes to light in the future, that the investigation into this matter is finalised and there are no additional persons of interest. Thank you. We're prepared to take your questions. I think it tried to say that our review and our reinvestigation of this matter, the fact that it was peer-reviewed by experts from other areas, resulted in the Queensland Police Service going back to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution and recommending that there would be a retrial. The Director has made his decision, and we respect that decision. Can we elaborate? I might hand that question to Assistant Commissioner Connell. What we can say that the investigation was thorough and peer-reviewed by two very experienced people involved in both investigations and law. As a result of that investigation and a review report, we were satisfied that the new evidence was consistent with the majority view of the criminal court of appeal, and we recommended to the DPP that Mr Stafford be retried for the murder of Lee Ann Hollins. As the Commissioner has indicated, the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a decision that's not the best interest to see that. Is that new evidence found or old evidence retested? There was a number of new witnesses. Located and identified, and there was also new pieces of evidence, which I suppose could best be described as using modern technology. But it's not appropriate that I go into those sorts of details. At the end of the day, we put a report forward to the DPP and they've made a decision in relation to whether or not to prosecute or not. That's an issue that I am still considering as Commissioner. There are a number of factors that I need to consider, particularly in relation to some of the new evidence and the new witnesses that were located. I can't give you an answer right at this point in time. That occurred late last week. I might hand that back to Mr Connan or to Mr Barnett. Thank you. The officers that we assigned to this case were some of our most experienced and most professional. They've done an outstanding job over the last two years. At the time that this investigation commenced, I gave them a completely free reign to take as long as required to get this job done, to run out every possible avenue of investigation, just to take a Greenfields approach start from the start, make no assumptions about who may or may not be responsible. They've done an outstanding job. It's not the quality of their work that is being judged far from it. I think the evidence that has been reviewed and uncovered shows that we've had a quality group of people on this job and no one could have expected any better from the work that they have put in. And that has been the overwhelming view of the Detective Inspector from New South Wales Homicide and the CMC who have overviewed this every step of the way and have fully agreed with the recommendations and conclusions of the investigation team. Certainly our response after the review was undertaken by our people and the peer review was to recommend that staff would be retried. That is not the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but we respect that decision based on the reasoning that he's provided. I'm sorry, what was that question? Yes, the investigator in charge of the review team has spoken to the Holland family today. Obviously disappointed, but they've indicated that they respect the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have advised Mr Stafford's solicitor. That was some time ago. I would say approximately several months ago. I don't have the exact date. So, do you think there are several months to come to this conclusion? Absolutely. Mr Stafford was tried originally, found guilty and did a significant term of imprisonment. He was released by the Court of Appeal, but that was the decision of the Court of Appeal. The majority view was that a properly instructed jury could again convict Graham Stafford for the land hollered murder. We have no different view to the Court of Appeal, but we also accept the decision made by the Director of Public Prosecution that it is not in the public interest now to retry Mr Stafford. All I'll say is that the DPP provided us advice that he was confirming his decision in the public interest, not to retry Mr Stafford. It's my understanding that Mr Stafford is in a situation where he has never been found not guilty. The Court of Appeal said, in a majority view, that a properly instructed jury could again convict Graham Stafford for the murder of Leanne Holland. As I've said to you today, we have no different view from that. I'm sorry, is there a cloud still over? I think that's a matter for you and the public to decide. We cannot speak for what Mr Stafford may or may not do at this point. No, I'm saying that I can't talk and the Queensland Police Service cannot talk for what Mr Stafford may or may not choose to do from this point. There is no conviction recorded, but he has not been found not guilty. As I said, our job is to put the case, the best case possible before the proper authorities. We certainly did that initially. And I believe that the review that was undertaken by as Deputy Barnett quite rightly said, some of the most competent and dedicated detectives in the state, the recommendation from that review was that Graham Stafford be retried. We have certainly never identified any other person of interest in this matter. I can confidently say there was not a scintilla of evidence that identifies any other person involved in this investigation. I can confidently say there was not a scintilla of evidence identified during the review that implicates any person identified in any information that's been since the review. Unlit, the Director of Public Prosecutions has made his decision based on the public interest test. You may be aware that we operate on a two-part test when we put anyone before court or arrest that person. One is the sufficiency of evidence test. The second is the public interest test. That applies to us just as strongly as it applies to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our recommendation on the former, so the sufficiency of the evidence, was to retry Mr. Stafford. On the second matter, certainly the Director has decided not to take the matter further based on the public interest test. We placed the matter with the recommendation to the Director who has the final say, and this is, as Deputy Barnett would explain to you, this is something that happens almost on a daily basis. I think that's probably a question best placed, Mr. Stafford. Yes, and that's what I said earlier. I think that's probably best asked of the DPP because the DPP has considered all of the factors that are inherent in taking this matter back to a retrial. Just the fact... Very interesting question, and perhaps that's something that the community can best judge rather than me. ...whereby people sense that they can go to the courts. What does it show? Um, on two points that you've just raised, I think we have one of the best justice systems in the world, let alone Australia. On the second issue, people can proclaim lots of things the justice system is designed to test that. I think this matter has been tested as far as it ever will be, and that's why we have closed our investigation. All I can say is that we are bound by the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has made his decision, we respect that decision. The matter is closed as far as the Queensland Police are concerned. Is there anything... Oh, sorry. Could I just say, just in terms of the passage of time, could I just make the point that two years of that time has been spent by us in a thorough, exhaustive, professional and impartial re-investigation? Leigh-Anne Hollands and her family deserve nothing less, and we don't make any apology for the time we've taken to come to this point. Is there anything stopping a change of part by the DPP later on that maybe they made? I think that's something you should take up with the DPP. That's a matter of conjecture. I think the officers understand that the decision that the Director makes is entirely independent and it's not a collaborative decision, and it's not a reflection in any way on their work. Certainly, for part of the review, re-investigated the initial crime scene that's been well documented. Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate your time today.