Sue Neill-Fraser: Tasmania; On parole and thereby banned from speaking to the media - having contested her innocence from the outset in a case in which no body or weapon was ever found and police have never been able to explain how the DNA of a 15-year-old homeless board came too be aboard the yacht. In its release, The Human Rights Law Centre argues that preventing her from speaking to the media is improper, unlawful and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: (Sarah Schwartz: Director of the Human Rights Law Centre:  “Everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of political communication, including and especially people who have been incarcerated. “The parole system should support people’s re-entry into the community after being in prison. Parole conditions which are repressive and restrict people’s fundamental human rights do the opposite. They set people up to fail and create hurdles that push people back into prison. “The right to political communication is fundamental to our democracy and safeguarded by Australia’s constitution, while our right to free speech is protected by international human rights law. These rights should not be restricted unless there is a legitimate reason.”

--------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND:  "Susan Neill-Fraser, 68, was found guilty of murdering her partner of 18 years, Bob Chappell, aboard their yacht on Australia Day in 2009. She was sentenced to 26 years in prison with a non-parole period of 18 years. After an appeal, that was reduced to 23 years with a non-parole of 13 years. Neill-Fraser has always maintained her innocence and launched numerous appeals over the years to quash her conviction, most recently in the High Court. All failed. …………Neill-Fraser was arrested in August 2009, about seven months after Mr Chappell's disappearance. No body or weapon was ever found and police have never been able to explain how the DNA of a then-15-year-old homeless girl came to be aboard the yacht. Although Neill-Fraser's account of what happened changed over time — and was described as a "web of lies" by the prosecution — she has always said she never killed Mr Chappell. (Released from prison on parole in October, 2022. HL);

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/convicted-murderer-susan-neill-fraser-out-of-prison-on-parole/101495448

------------------------------------------------------------

RELEASE: "Legal challenge filed against Tasmanian Parole Board's decision to gag free speech,"  published by The  Human Rights Law Centre, on April 28 20225.

The Human Rights Law Centre has filed legal proceedings on behalf of Tasmanian grandmother, Susan Neill-Fraser, to challenge a restrictive parole condition placed on her by the Tasmanian Parole Board seeking to limit her ability to speak to the media.

The case, filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, argues that preventing Susan from speaking to the media is improper, unlawful and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.

Parole is intended to support people to reintegrate into the community after time spent in prison.

 The Human Rights Law Centre is concerned by the largely unchecked powers of parole boards throughout the country which impose restrictive parole conditions that prevent people’s full participation in the community.

 Restrictive parole conditions have a disproportionate impact on already marginalised groups who are overrepresented in the criminal legal system.

Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre said:

“Everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of political communication, including and especially people who have been incarcerated.

“The parole system should support people’s re-entry into the community after being in prison. Parole conditions which are repressive and restrict people’s fundamental human rights do the opposite. They set people up to fail and create hurdles that push people back into prison.

“The right to political communication is fundamental to our democracy and safeguarded by Australia’s constitution, while our right to free speech is protected by international human rights law. These rights should not be restricted unless there is a legitimate reason.”

Background

Susan Neill-Fraser served 13 years in prison and has been on parole since 2022. In December 2024, the Tasmanian Parole Board placed a condition on Susan parole which prohibited her from communicating “directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim [her] alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction."

The entire release can be read at: 

https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/legal-challenge-filed-against-tasmanian-parole-boards-decision-to-gag-free-speech/

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;

--------------------------------------------------------------