PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The High Court's ruling, its interpretation of what constitutes fresh and compelling evidence under the new law, and any findings about Dr Manock's reliability will have wide-reaching implications, not least for the man who has been fighting his murder conviction for more than four decades."
------------------------------
STORY: "Frits Van Beelen: High Court to deliver watershed judgement on murder conviction appeal," by reporter Candice Prosser, published by ABC News on November 6, 2017.
GIST: It's been 46 years since the partially clothed body of teenager Deborah Leach was found buried in seaweed at an Adelaide beach. Now
the High Court will decide whether to overturn the decades-old
conviction of the man found guilty of her murder, a watershed ruling
that extends far beyond the fate of her convicted killer. When the
court delivers its judgment on Frits Van Beelen's appeal on Wednesday,
the entire legal fraternity, along with justice campaigners and many
others, will be watching closely. It's the first time the state's new "fresh and compelling evidence"
appeal laws have been tested in the High Court and, with a raft of
other cases set to follow suit, the court's interpretation of this
legislation will be crucial. Turn the clock back to July 15, 1971,
when 15-year-old Ms Leach made her fateful trip to Taperoo Beach in
Adelaide's north-west after school to walk her dog, Susie. She never returned. Mr Van Beelen, one of the beachgoers that afternoon, was convicted of her murder. The
prosecution case against him was that between 4:10pm and no later than
4:30pm on July 15, Mr Van Beelen drowned the teenager in seawater by
holding her head under the water, then had sex with her dead body. Mr Van Beelen admitted to police being on the
beach that day, arriving there in the afternoon at about 4:00pm before
leaving to be in the city at 5:00pm when he picked up his wife. At
his trial, the now discredited former chief forensic pathologist Colin
Manock testified on the time of death based on the teenager's stomach
contents, an analysis Van Beelen's defence said was "unscientific". The testimony put the time of death within the timeframe that Mr Van Beelen was on the beach. Mr
Van Beelen always denied coming into contact with Ms Leach at all, and
his legal team has argued Dr Manock's testimony was clearly wrong. After exhausting all appeal avenues and being
originally sentenced to death, Mr Van Beelen served 17 years behind
bars before being released. In July last year, the South
Australian Chief Justice Chris Kourakis found he had fresh and
compelling evidence that warranted his conviction being overturned, but
the two other justices disagreed, a majority decision Mr Van Beelen's
lawyers sought to challenge in the High Court. The Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) argued the forensic evidence was challenged at
the time of Mr Van Beelen's trial and therefore the new evidence
discrediting it was not compelling: An appeal in the wake of Henry Keogh: When Mr Keogh was released from prison in
December 2014 after serving two decades behind bars for murdering his
fiancee Anna-Jane Cheney, he became the first person to have his murder
conviction quashed under amended appeal laws that allowed a new appeal to be brought if there is fresh and compelling evidence. The
Court of Criminal Appeal found that flawed forensic evidence given in
Mr Keogh's trial by Dr Manock amounted to "unsustainable speculation"
and a "substantial miscarriage of justice". The evidence was deemed to be fresh and compelling and warranted an appeal, the setting aside of his conviction and a retrial. So began the legal and political fallout. That
ruling opened the floodgates to more appeals, and with thousands of
autopsies and some 400 criminal convictions associated with Dr Manock's
testimony, there have also been calls for a royal commission. With
so much time elapsed, the possibility of a fair retrial and forensic
investigations in any of those cases becomes significantly diminished,
so much so that the DPP made a decision to drop the case against Keogh
before taking him to a retrial. The High Court's ruling, its
interpretation of what constitutes fresh and compelling evidence under
the new law, and any findings about Dr Manock's reliability will have
wide-reaching implications, not least for the man who has been fighting
his murder conviction for more than four decades."
The entire story can be found at the link below:
The entire story can be found at the link below:
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
