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/c
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/c
