STORY: "Van Beelen murder appeal bid sees High Court test 'fresh and compelling' evidence laws," by reporter Matt Coleman, published by ABC News on June 20, 2017.
SUB-HEADING: "A South Australian man will go to court this week in yet another bid to quash his conviction for murdering a teenage girl in the early 1970s."
KEY POINTS: "Van Beelen has had several appeals rejected; He is the second person to test new laws; The first use of the laws also involved a murder case; Questionable pathology evidence is again the key issue. But the Frits Van Beelen case is more than just a renewed attempt by a man to clear his name after 45 years. The latest move will see Australia's highest court more clearly define the boundaries of laws designed to ensure that those with "fresh and compelling" evidence of their innocence don't rot behind bars.
GIST: What was Frits Van Beelen convicted of? Van Beelen was convicted of murdering 15-year-old Deborah Leach at Taperoo Beach in Adelaide's north-west in July 1971. Ms Leach's partially-clothed body was found buried in seaweed more than 12 hours after she was last seen running towards the beach. From its earliest stages, this case has been anything but straightforward. According to the High Court's summary, Van Beelen was first convicted and sentenced to death in October 1972. He appealed and got a retrial, was convicted again and then sentenced to death for a second time in July 1973. Van Beelen appealed yet again but that was dismissed later in 1973. He then applied to appeal to the High Court and to the Privy Council in London but it was refused. The case summary states "his conviction was again affirmed in September 1974 on the hearing of a petition for mercy". Van Beelen served 17 years in prison. How does he have yet another chance to clear his name? The Van Beelen case is in court again because of legislation passed by the South Australian Parliament in 2013 and first used - successfully - by another man, Henry Keogh, in December 2014. When he introduced the laws, Attorney-General John Rau noted that a convicted person normally had one right of appeal. Once that appeal process was exhausted, if new evidence against the soundness of a conviction emerged, the defendant had only one option available - "to petition the Governor for mercy". Mr Rau's changes to the law allowed people to appeal in court again, if they had what the court deemed "fresh and compelling" evidence. When Mr Keogh did that in 2014, he had spent 20 years in jail for murder over the 1994 drowning of his fiancée Anna-Jane Cheney in a bath at the couple's Magill home in Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs. He was able to convince the court there had been a miscarriage of justice in his case due to "fresh and compelling evidence" that cast doubt on the testimony given by discredited former chief forensic pathologist, Dr Colin Manock. The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled the pathologist - among other things - had misled the trial court with a drowning hypothesis that amounted to "unsustainable speculation". Mr Keogh's conviction was set aside and he was released on bail to await a retrial - which the public prosecutor later decided not to go ahead with. Van Beelen is trying to use the same "fresh and compelling" laws that Mr Keogh used. Do the two cases have anything else in common? Yes, a very important common factor. Dr Manock himself. Dr Manock also gave evidence at Mr Van Beelen's trial - and like with the Keogh case - significant questions have been raised about it. Mr Van Beelen's lawyers told previous court hearings that in other cases Dr Manock was involved in, he had been found to have provided unreliable evidence and in the Keogh case he had "deliberately hid" or failed to disclose crucial evidence. They argued in court that Dr Manock was not qualified to give evidence, was incompetent, untrustworthy and had used inconsistent science. The "fresh and compelling evidence" Mr Van Beelen's lawyers are relying on are three articles raising doubts about the scientific methods used by Dr Manock to determine Ms Leach's time of death. Why is the High Court involved? The High Court is getting involved due to disagreement between South Australian judges. When Van Beelen launched his appeal under the "fresh and compelling" laws in July 2016, he did so in the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal. Two of the three justices hearing the matter dismissed it. They ruled that the evidence questioning Dr Manock's original time-of-death determination did not amount to "compelling" evidence. Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, however, said he would have allowed the appeal and would have ordered a retrial. With two judges against - and one in favour - the appeal was dismissed, but Van Beelen's lawyers took the case to the High Court. They are this week, effectively, asking the High Court to over-rule the two judges who dismissed the 2016 appeal. They are arguing, among other things, that the South Australian court failed to understand the compelling nature of the material that cast doubt on Dr Manock's original time-of-death evidence. They also say the South Australian court was wrong to conclude that Dr Manock's evidence was questioned at trial in the 1970s and therefore later questioning was precluded. The High Court hearing is scheduled for June 21."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-21/van-beelen-high-court-bid-test-evidence-laws/8632088
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/c
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/c
