Andrew L. Urban
After a guilty verdict, the defendant is entitled to appeal. In the cases we regard as wrongful convictions, an appeal is an essential step toward correcting error at trial. When is the assumption of innocence negated? Continue reading
The appeal court in Bromley has fundamentally failed to pay due regard to the rule of law and to the well-established principles governing criminal appeals, according to Flinders University legal academics Dr Bob Moles and Bibi Sangha, as we first reported on July 2, 2018. Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban
Contrary to his apparent intention, Dr Simon Longstaff’s heartfelt and personal reflection laid out in his column (The Australian, May 5, 2026) reinforces the inappropriateness of the practice known as “welcome to country” in 21st century Australia. The element missing is context. (This article is published here given the high level of the public interest and debate on the matter.) Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban
It starts today. Witnesses will be heard at the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, starting with Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Ever since the release of the Terms of Reference, we have been concerned at how probing Commissioner Virgina Bell will be to examine how Labor’s actions generated the environment in which antisemitism flourished since October 7, 2023. Are we heading for a case of wrongful conviction, wrongfully blaming failures of the security services while ignoring the grave mistakes – commissions and omissions – of PM Albanese and Team? See our full submission to the Commission. Continue reading
STEVEN FENNELL explores both sides of the Nicola Gobbo debate, wrongful convictions and the fracture of Australian justice. Continue reading
Convicted of a 2012 double murder, Marco Rusterholz believes he is (like Sue Neill-Fraser), a victim of Tasmania’s discredited legal system. To avoid an apprehension of bias, we have sought an independent, structured, adversarial analysis of his case by LIA (Legal Intel AI); a stress test. Continue reading
In his post on April 25, 2026, The Record and the Reality: What Transcripts Don’t Show in Criminal Appeal, STEVEN FENNELL argued that transcripts are an incomplete reconstruction of a trial. In this companion piece, he provides a cautionary tale from personal experience of what occurs when an appellate court doesn’t struggle with an incomplete record but actively adopts a mistaken narrative from the prosecution as part of its legal architecture.
Continue reading
Andrew L. Urban*
The Australian featured this extensive article in the March 25, 2015, edition. It was the first detailed mainstream media analysis of the Sue Neill-Fraser case and serves to inform those new to the subject – and a briefing to those who have recently become interested. Continue reading
There is an unspoken assumption at the heart of the criminal justice system: that the written record is an accurate and sufficient representation of what occurred in court, writes STEVEN FENNELL. It is not. Transcripts are treated as authoritative. They are relied upon by appellate courts, journalists, legal academics, and, ultimately, by the public in forming judgments about the fairness of proceedings. They are, in effect, the official memory of the justice system. Continue reading
Some have mistakenly asserted that the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith proves the principle of legal equality is well-respected in Australian law. It proves the reverse, writes CHRIS MERRITT in The Australian. Continue reading