Jury secrecy shields wrongful convictions; should juries be recorded?

Posted on March 28, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Recorded and with availability restricted to relevant judges, jury deliberations hold the key to many wrongful convictions.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie, General articles | Leave a comment

Judges and the law not acting rationally

Posted on March 27, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

The High Court’s decision last week, known as EGH19, is the latest in a string of defeats for the government over its attempts to protect the community from foreign criminals who are in this country unlawfully. The ruling in EGH19 struck down the latest regulation imposing ankle bracelets and curfews. But the seven judges produced six separate judgments that ran to 153 pages, including the two dissents.  Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 4 Comments

Appeals Are Not Enough: A System That Refuses to Learn

Posted on March 26, 2026 by andrew

The legal system resists correcting its mistakes; it avoids learning from them. This was a post responding to our recent article about the failures of appeals, from reader STEVEN FENNELL, whose personal experience informs his opinions. His observations are so pertinent we are republishing his comment as a stand alone article to ensure wide readership. Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 4 Comments

Judge errs, jury convicts, accused jailed, appeal lost, complaint dismissed

Posted on March 25, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

 The judge whose summing up was convoluted and in places  incomprehensible even to lawyers, told the jury that the accused had “made admissions” of the offence –  which is not true – but as one barrister puts it, “the jury had NO CHOICE but to find him guilty“.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 06 'Paul' | Leave a comment

Q: What is ‘fresh’, looks old and is overlooked? A: you’d be surprised. Fact checking grounds for appeal with Dr Bob Moles.

Posted on March 24, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

 In the wake of yesterday’s story about the legal system’s reluctant response to appeals, a significant misunderstanding about what constitutes ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence is explained by legal academic Dr Bob Moles.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 02 Henry Keogh, Case 05 Derek Bromley | 7 Comments

‘Case closed. Shut up and stop bothering us’ – the legal system’s response to appeals

Posted on March 23, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Excuse my headline, but it’s a translation from legal language. Even among legal academics and former High Court justices, there is great unease about how our already imperfect legal system turns positively negative at the thought of being questioned. Why else make appeals nigh-impossible? The system prefers the legal certainty of finality to substantive justice by correcting wrongful convictions.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 3 Comments

Exposed: antics of the faceless Tim Ellis support group

Posted on March 20, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

 Less than a dozen in notional number*, less active and certainly less transparent than the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group, but incessantly annoying, the group of commentators on this blog I have dubbed the Tim Ellis Support Group, uses innuendo and obfuscation to support former DPP Tim Ellis in prosecuting Sue Neill-Fraser for murder, a conviction we (and thousands of others) consider egregiously wrongful.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 9 Comments

Selby v Ellis continued – how jury was misled in Sue Neill-Fraser murder trial

Posted on March 19, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

 Yesterday, we published a letter from former Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC in which he accused former barrister Hugh Selby of a failure of integrity in Selby’s article. Today, Selby replies, to emphasise how the jury was misled by disclosure failures.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 13 Comments

Former Sue Neill-Fraser prosecutor Tim Ellis SC takes issue with former barrister Hugh Selby’s latest article

Posted on March 18, 2026 by andrew

Former Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC was the prosecutor in the now infamous 2010 Sue Neill-Fraser murder trial. In a letter to wrongfulconvictionsreport.org, he accuses Hugh Selby’s March 16, 2026 article of “sadly lacking in the integrity he constantly accuses others of lacking.”  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 36 Comments

Non-disclosures in Sue Neill-Fraser case mean no valid conviction

Posted on March 16, 2026 by andrew

In what can be seen as a companion piece to our article, Duty of disclosure lasts forever by Bibi Sangha and Dr Bob Moles, former barrister HUGH SELBY explains why the police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defence before trial all relevant material that they have about a case and the consequences of its breach…. and says that “taken together, the non-disclosures in Sue Neill-Fraser’s case are so significant that her conviction cannot stand.”  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 10 Comments