CONTEXT: Bromley out, but not ‘free’: Derek Bromley was released on parole in July 2024 after 40 years in jail, sentenced to life for murder. Eligible to apply for parole 20 years ago, it could not be then granted under SA’s system because he refused to “show remorse”. “How could I show remorse? I was innocent: I didn’t kill Stephen Dozoza in the Torrens River in Adelaide in 1984,” was Bromley’s constant refrain. And still is. Another man, co-convicted, was released on parole in 2004. The High Court 12 months ago refused Bromley’s bid for a new trial, even though two of the bench of five judges would have acquitted him, overturned his conviction and released him completely. T The behaviour of judges in that case might well be called into question in a future inquiry. (Civil Liberties Australia:)
https://tinyurl.com/yc7ccsbu
———————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " Dr Manock has said he helped to secure over 400 criminal convictions. "He failed to mention at any of those trials that his employer (the State of SA: ed) had given sworn evidence to the Supreme Court that he was not qualified ‘to certify cause of death’ and that he did not have any ‘expert
qualifications’," Dr Moles told CLA last month. "If the fraud application is successful in just one case, how could it fail to apply in others. “Perhaps instead of going away, the case of Derek Bromley might just be getting more interesting?"
——————————————————————————————————
POST: "New bid to find Bromley innocent, due fraud,' published by Civil Liberties Australia , CLArion, on December 1, 2024, at the link below;
GIST: "The recent decision of the High Court – refusing leave to Derek Bromley to appeal his 40-year-old conviction for murder – was quite extraordinary, academic legal guru, Dr Bob Moles, told CLA last month.
So weird was the ruling that Dr Moles proposes a novel approach to “overturning” a High Court decision.
"Three judges refused his application for leave to appeal. The remaining two judges (Edelman and Steward) said that they would grant leave to appeal, determine that there had been a serious miscarriage of justice, overturn the conviction and enter a verdict of acquittal," Dr Moles writes. (Bromley v The King
[2023] HCA 42)'
"As criminal convictions must demonstrate guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, one might have thought that the determination by two (out of five) of the country’s leading judges that Bromley had been wrongly convicted might constitute such a ‘reasonable doubt’.
"Regrettably, the judges on the appeal refused to allow submissions to be made concerning the evidence of the forensic pathologist who had given key evidence at Mr Bromley’s trial (some 40 years ago) – the now notorious Dr Colin Manock.
"He had been referred to in a recent television program Under Investigation broadcast by Channel 9 as ‘the disgraceful Dr Manock’. Dr Shepherd, a leading forensic pathologist in the UK had described Manock as ‘a charlatan’." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTypFBvx2Ik&t=7s
Trying new approach… Can anything further be done once the High Court slams the door on a case?
Dr Moles, Adjunct Associate Professor at Flinders University in Adelaide, has played a leading role in Manock and SA wrongful conviction issues for more than
two decades. He says Bromley has another option.
Colin Manock Derek Bromley
Dr Moles proposes starting new legal proceedings to demonstrate that Bromley's conviction was obtained by fraud. He believes this could be a real game-changer for those representing people who claim to have been wrongly convicted, not just Bromley.
It requires an originating summons (a fresh legal action) to be made to a single judge of the Supreme Court, alleging fraud. It is not an appeal. It could include allegations of dishonesty, withholding of key information or manifest error.
The application is in the civil jurisdiction of the court although involving a criminal matter. It only requires to be established on a balance of probabilities. The fraud must be specifically pleaded and is the only issue to be raised.
If successful, the single judge can overturn the judgment of any other
court including prior decisions of the appeal court or High Court itself.
Dr Manock has said he helped to secure over 400 criminal convictions.
"He failed to mention at any of those trials that his employer (the State of
SA: ed) had given sworn evidence to the Supreme Court that he was not
qualified ‘to certify cause of death’ and that he did not have any ‘expert
qualifications’," Dr Moles told CLA last month.
"If the fraud application is successful in just one case, how could it fail to
apply in others?
“Perhaps instead of going away, the case of Derek Bromley might just be
getting more interesting?"
The entire post can be read at:
http://netk.net.au/Bromley/Bromley77.pdf
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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.
- SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————-
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
