Monday, August 28, 2017

Susan Neill-Fraser: Australia: Independent criminal case review: (1): Human rights lawyer Greg Barns (Hobart) says the appeal of her conviction puts the Tasmanian legal system on trial..."The importance of the case cannot be overestimated. It has attracted the likes of eminent journalists such as Charles Wooley, who revealed last Saturday week that Premier Will Hodgman refused to entertain a compelling argument from one of Australia’s best criminal barristers, Robert Richter QC, for an independent inquiry into the case. Several days after Wooley and the Mercury’s Patrick Billings reported on the case, it got front page billing in The Age. Nick McKenzie, who has broken many stories of consequence over the years, often with the ABC’s Four Corners program, set out the machinations of the case, including the recent development of Tasmania Police charging individuals who could be said to be supportive of Neill-Fraser, prior to the forthcoming hearing on the case in the Supreme Court. Wooley reported that, when Richter presented Hodgman, Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom and their advisers with a request for an independent investigation into the case to be undertaken by an eminent lawyer from outside this small state, one of Richter’s team observed that the politicians and their advisers “looked like they had consumed sour milk”. “They were very dismissive,” Wooley relayed that this unnamed person had said. Richter presented a report to the politicians that dealt with, in detail, an alternative scenario about how Neill-Fraser’s husband died. The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common."

 

COMMENTARY:  "The appeal of Sue Neill-Fraser’s murder conviction puts the Tasmanian legal system on trial," by Greg Barns, published by The Mercury on August 27, 2017. (Barrister Greg Barns is a Hobart-based human rights lawyer. He was previously an adviser to state and federal Liberal governments.)

GIST: The case of Sue Neill-Fraser is a hard one for the legal system in Tasmania. To date, the political reaction to it has been all too predictable and disappointing. For the record, this columnist was once a member of the Neill-Fraser legal team and has stayed in touch with the case and its advisers. Whether Neill-Fraser’s conviction should be overturned is a matter for the Supreme Court to determine and therefore not the subject of this column. What is a legitimate focus for broader community discussion is how society deals with cases where there is an allegation of wrongful conviction and, particularly, the political response. It is fair to say politicians and those who advise them are generally not enamoured of upsetting the criminal justice process on behalf of persons who allege they have been wrongfully convicted. Neill-Fraser was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her husband. She maintained her innocence at her trial and she, along with a strong supporter group and legal team, are seeking to have her conviction overturned. The case is inherently controversial because it is what we call a wrongful conviction case. That is, it is a case where the argument is that the legal process was flawed. If Neill-Fraser has her conviction overturned — and to reiterate, that is a matter for another forum — the conclusion that must be drawn is that in this case justice was not done and a woman lost her liberty for a number of years (she has been in prison since 2010) on the basis of a flawed verdict. The importance of the case cannot be overestimated. It has attracted the likes of eminent journalists such as Charles Wooley, who revealed last Saturday week that Premier Will Hodgman refused to entertain a compelling argument from one of Australia’s best criminal barristers, Robert Richter QC, for an independent inquiry into the case. Several days after Wooley and the Mercury’s Patrick Billings reported on the case, it got front page billing in The Age. Nick McKenzie, who has broken many stories of consequence over the years, often with the ABC’s Four Corners program, set out the machinations of the case, including the recent development of Tasmania Police charging individuals who could be said to be supportive of Neill-Fraser, prior to the forthcoming hearing on the case in the Supreme Court. Wooley reported that, when Richter presented Hodgman, Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom and their advisers with a request for an independent investigation into the case to be undertaken by an eminent lawyer from outside this small state, one of Richter’s team observed that the politicians and their advisers “looked like they had consumed sour milk”. “They were very dismissive,” Wooley relayed that this unnamed person had said. Richter presented a report to the politicians that dealt with, in detail, an alternative scenario about how Neill-Fraser’s husband died. The reluctance of the political establishment to question the justice system in cases where wrongful conviction is alleged is common.........In South Australia, Henry Keogh, convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, spent two decades in prison despite his legal team presenting the South Australian government with compelling evidence, eventually accepted by the state’s highest court in 2014, of serious flaws in the forensic evidence used to convict him. The government of Labor Premier Mike Rann refused to allow Keogh justice because it was too busy burnishing its attacks on criminal defence lawyers and sounding tough on law and order. The solution to the lack of political will when it comes to allegations of wrongful conviction is to establish an independent criminal cases review commission. These bodies — one exists in Scotland and others in England and Wales — are at arm’s length from politics and enable a dispassionate, fair analysis of the claim. Such a commission process does not exist in Australia and the result is messy and political in cases such as Neill-Fraser’s. The legal system in a democratic society should not be afraid to say it got it wrong, or at least be open to scrutiny when such as claim is made."

The entire commentary can be found at:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/the-appeal-of-sue-neillfrasers-murder-conviction-puts-the-tasmanian-legal-system-on-trial/news-story/1809d4e3fea050dfae860a96a5a05cec

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/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;