STORY: "Frits Van Beelen’s 1971 murder conviction stands, despite Chief Justice finding he was victim of ‘substantial miscarriage of justice,’ by reporter Andrew Dowdell, published by The Advertiser on July 13, 2016.
GIST: "The
state’s top judge has found convicted murderer Frits Van Beelen was the
victim of a “substantial miscarriage of justice” — but his conviction
remains after two fellow judges refused permission to appeal Van
Beelen’s legal team says it will now seek leave to appeal the
conviction for the 1971 murder of teenager Deborah Leach in the High
Court of Australia. Chief Justice Chris Kourakis on Wednesday
ruled that forensic evidence at Van Beelen’s trial from Dr Colin Manock
was flawed and that his conviction should be quashed and a new trial
ordered. But Justices Trish Kelly and Ann Vanstone ruled the
opposite — finding that while evidence challenging Dr Manock’s findings
were fresh they were not compelling. Van Beelen, 69,
relied on 2013 legislation allowing historic convictions to be appealed if “fresh and compelling evidence” arose in an effort to win a retrial over the murder at Taperoo Beach. During
a previous hearing, Van Beelen’s lawyers claimed the evidence of former
forensic pathologist Dr Manock was unreliable, particularly regarding
Ms Leach’s time of death and his claims she had been sexually assaulted
after being murdered. Van Beelen, who had previous convictions for sexual assault, served 17 years in prison before being released in 1990. Chief
Justice Kourakis said the new evidence was both fresh and compelling
and found that “a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred” and
that it was “significantly possible” a jury armed with the evidence
would have acquitted Van Beelen. He found that Dr Manock’s
testimony at trial that Ms Leach had died no more than four hours after
eating lunch was “plainly wrong and without scientific foundation”. “Dr
Manock proceeded on an assumption that there was a ‘normal’ time for
the emptying of the stomach. It is that assumption which has been
falsified by the subsequent research,” he found. The Chief Justice
ruled that Van Beelen’s murder conviction should be quashed and a new
trial ordered — however Justices Ann Vanstone and Trish Kelly ruled the
appeal should not be granted. Justice Vanstone found that while
the new evidence was fresh, it was not compelling and did not reach the
threshold under the new legislation. Despite the majority ruling
against his client, Van Beelen’s lawyer Kevin Borich QC said his hopes
were buoyed by the Chief Justice’s comments and decision. “Given
the fact that the Chief Justice has allowed the appeal, we will
certainly be taking the matter to the High Court of Australia,” Mr
Borich said. Legal academic Dr Bob Moles, who has spearheaded a
number of challenges to convictions including that of Henry Keogh, said
the High Court appeal could open the floodgates for up to 400 other
people convicted of crimes using Dr Manock’s evidence. Dr Moles said it could be proven Dr Manock was not an expert nor qualified to give expert evidence in criminal trials. “We
think that all of Dr Manock’s cases ought to be reviewed anyway and we
think the government should set up a special commission of inquiry in
order to deal with these,” Dr Moles said. “Otherwise we face the
unenviable process of 400 cases being processed through the court and
being fought tooth and nail by the DPP’s office and the costs involved
with that could be phenomenal.” Dr Moles said he was optimistic the High Court would allow the appeal on the grounds of fresh and compelling new evidence. “I
can’t think of a case that has come out of South Australia in recent
years that involves a greater issue of public importance and I think the
High Court will appreciate that,” Dr Moles said.'
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/frits-van-beelens-1971-murder-conviction-stands-despite-chief-justice-finding-he-was-victim-of-substantial-miscarriage-of-justice/news-story/32be90cbae885a95ec13a91bb58bb2bd
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses
several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of
the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this
powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and
myself get more out of the site.
The
Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty
incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology
system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent
stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please
send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;