Sue Neill-Fraser appeal to start soon – but will it end the nightmare?

Andrew L. Urban.

 Sue Neill-Fraser, 65, has never hugged her grandchildren outside prison. She was arrested# on August 20, 2009, charged with murdering her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009. We hereby mark the bleak 12th anniversary. She has always maintained her innocence (as have many supporters and several lawyers) but her nightmare has continued, as the Tasmanian legal system failed her every step of the way.* Her final appeal against her conviction is scheduled to begin shortly (March 1, 2021) but is it just a matter of ‘going through the motions’ with only local judges on the bench (contrary to accepted practice)?

Sue’s daughter Sarah and her husband Mark Bowles were planning their round the world honeymoon, cancelled at the last minute at considerable emotional and financial cost, when Sue was arrested. Their two children were born in the following tough and costly years as the family fought a system that seems prejudiced against her.

The appeal will be heard by three Tasmanian judges (Justices Helen Wood, Stephen Estcourt and Robert Pearce) who may be called on to consider matters concerning the trial judge, who is now their Chief Justice, Alan Blow AO. This would put them in a conflicted position, as a former judge has pointed out and should not happen. It doesn’t in other states.

Sue Neill-Fraser, Australia Day2009

Sue Neill-Fraser was denied bail and has been in jail ever since August 2009. At her trial the following year, she was convicted and sentenced to 26 years jail (reduced to 23 on appeal) with a non-parole period of 18 years (reduced to 13 on appeal). Sentencing her, then Justice Blow (now Chief Justice) told her she deserved an extra long sentence because she refused to tell the police where to find Bob Chappell’s body. Even the otherwise dismissive appeal court found this to be in error on the part of the learned judge and reduced the sentence and the non parole period.

Justice Blow had said: “As a result of the means that she adopted to kill Mr Chappell and dispose of his body, Ms Neill-Fraser made it necessary for the police to undertake a very time consuming investigation that involved a large number officers making thorough inquiries over a long period. In my view, the steps that Ms Neill-Fraser took on the night in question to conceal her crime and the inconvenience and expense of the investigation that she made necessary are aggravating factors that I should take into account.” The absurdity is astonishing, especially as there was no primary evidence that she killed Chappell. And it is wrong in law, as the Court of Criminal Appeal pointed out:

It is impermissible to increase the sentence in order to mark the court’s disapproval of the accused having put the issues to proof or having presented a time-wasting or even scurrilous defence. 

Justice (now Chief Justice) Blow

The learned judge had also made the error of allowing prosecutor Tim Ellis SC to speculate how Neill-Fraser may have murdered Bob Chappell, without any supporting evidence. Will these appeal judges now find this also ‘impermissible’ – enough to warrant a mistrial? Or even sufficient to quash the conviction? (It is arguable that all the legal professionals in court at the trial bear responsibility for this catastrophic failure of the justice system.)

The 2020 appeal court could also find fault with the judge’s decision to side with the prosecutor – who dismissed the DNA issue as a red herring – in refusing to recall Meaghan Vass for further examination in the witness box, when it was discovered she had lied about her whereabouts on the night Chappell disappeared. It was Vass’ DNA, after all, that had been found on the deck of Four Winds, from which Chappell had disappeared. Together with the prosecutor’s impermissible speculation, is this enough to convince the judges that Neill-Fraser did not get a fair trial?

The Mercury, August 3, 2019

The jury, acting rationally, should certainly have entertained ‘reasonable doubt’ and the judge should have so directed.

Things had started badly: the police investigation was carried out with all the hallmarks of tunnel vision, its singular focus on Neill-Fraser, squeezing and manipulating evidence to fit her as the only suspect. It was so slapdash, the police didn’t even talk to her ex husband, then living around the corner in Hobart. For a fuller critique of the police investigation, read former detective Colin McLaren’s thoroughly researched book, Southern Justice (Hachette).

And speaking of the DNA, it is central to this new appeal, given that Vass has (since the first appeal in 2011) admitted she was indeed on board Four Winds at the time Chappell was involved in a fight with two males who accompanied Vass that night, boarding the yacht in the mistaken belief that no-one was on board. The dinghy was missing. It had been taken ashore by Sue Neill-Fraser (to meet her sister in law for lunch at the yacht club), leaving Bob Chappell to work below decks – with a mobile phone at hand to use if needed.

in bad company

Vass, then a 16 year old homeless girl, was in bad company. When testifying at the trial, she denied having been on board. She didn’t say this at the time, but she had been traumatised by the incident and terrified of the consequences if she bore eye witness to what she saw. In 2018, Neill-Fraser was in court seeking leave to appeal under new legislation; Vass (almost hysterically) denied having been on board, contradicting her own affidavit.

Meaghan Vass

It wasn’t until March 10, 2019 that Vass finally admitted it was her and her vomit on the deck that yielded the DNA; she did so publicly on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes (the episode wasn’t shown in Tasmania) and vowed to repeat that in court when called to testify at the upcoming appeal.

That fact throws into sharp relief why the cavalier treatment of the crucial DNA evidence by the prosecution (and the judge) was so wrong. Ironic, really, given it was the only actual, primary evidence available at the trial – and it pointed to the possibility of Neill-Fraser’s innocence; a third party had been at the crime scene. The DNA may not have been that of the murderer, but DNA evidence couldn’t be just left aside.

Which brings us to the High Court’s refusal to grant leave to hear an appeal from Neill-Fraser. This was based upon the prosecutor’s dismissive claim that Vass could not have been on the boat and the DNA was not a direct deposit but perhaps something transferred on the shoe of a police officer. The High Court accepted his argument – false, as it turns out.

DPP wrong footed on DNA

Dr Bob Moles

“It should be noted,” says Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles, “that the reason used by the prosecution to support the Vass explanation that she was not there was based upon an hypothesis that the deposit of DNA on the boat could have arrived there on the sole of the shoe of a police office who had picked it up elsewhere in the vicinity of the boat. However, that explanation does not accord with the facts.

“If we call the deposit on the boat the “terminal” deposit – and it resulted from being a deposit from the sole of a shoe of a police officer, then to support that theory, the investigator would expect to find another deposit two paces away from the terminal deposit – assuming that the shoe deposit theory only relates to one shoe and not both of them. Also, the deposit terminal minus one would expect to be a more substantial deposit than the terminal deposit as with each step the material on the sole of the shoe would be diminishing. That exercise can be repeated, finding increasingly substantial deposits every two paces and which lead back to the original deposit wherever that may be.

“In the absence of other deposits at two-pace intervals, one would have to assume that the police officer landed on the boat from a helicopter, or hopped between the original deposit and the terminal deposit. Neither of which is supported by the evidence.

“Therefore, the ‘deposit on the sole of the shoe’ theory is not only unlikely or improbable, but is plainly inconsistent with the forensic evidence.”

Tim Ellis SC, former Tasmanian DPP – prosecutor at trial

The Office of the Tasmanian DPP could have responded to the many doubts raised in this case by the DNA at the crime scene differently.

Dr Moles notes: “in the Victorian case of Mr Farah Jamah (2008), it became clear that his conviction had been based upon misleading interpretations of the DNA in his case. Once the prosecutor had identified the fact that such an error had occurred, he took steps to ensure that the case was put before the Court of Appeal at the next available opportunity. The judgment of the appeal court was but a single sentence, ‘The Court, having read the materials filed by the parties and having considered the submissions and concessions of the Crown, is satisfied that it is appropriate to order that the conviction relating to the applicant be set aside and a verdict of acquittal be entered.”

Daryl Coates SC, current Tasmanian DPP

It is not the only example that should have been followed. “It was made clear in the SBS Insight program “Wrongful Convictions”, (September 3, 2019), that the prosecutor in the 2001 Queensland case of Frank Button recognized that a significant error had occurred in relation to the DNA in his case. As a consequence, the prosecutor ensured that the case was before the Court of Appeal within 24 hours. In its judgment, the appeal court judges made it clear that Mr Button had been wrongly convicted. The judgment opened with the words, ‘today is a black day in the history of the administration of criminal justice in Queensland’.

“The Court expressed approval of the fact that the DPP had put in train the necessary processes to ensure that an enquiry would take place to find out what had gone wrong.

“The appeal court judgment is but a single page – it does not cite any case-law or legislation in its judgment. It merely says that an unacceptable error had occurred, that it ought not to have happened, the fact that it did was most regrettable, and that not only must the conviction be overturned, but that everyone should know that Mr Button is innocent of this crime.”

Dr Moles comments: “As I have always said with the Sue Neill-Fraser case, with the DNA clearly indicating an error in that the trial was misinformed about the significance of the DNA, along with the manifest errors on the record of the trial (such as the absurd statements by the prosecutor) the Crown should have conceded that appealable error had occurred. Yet they prolong the farce, just as in South Australia they did with the Keogh case pretending that there is nothing wrong.”

Will Neill-Fraser’s appeal judges, Justices Helen Wood, Stephen Estcourt and Robert Pearce, regard Vass’ testimony as fresh and compelling evidence – and exculpatory – and taken together with the other failures at trial (not all of them outlined here), serve the interests of justice by quashing the conviction? Will they end the nightmare? Or, since she twice in court has denied being on the yacht, might they declare Vass an unreliable witness – just when she is telling the truth? Will the real murderer/s be sought?

Will Sue Neill-Fraser finally get to hug her grandchildren at home?

* Every Step of the Way:
* Police investigation 2009 – poorly conducted, tunnel vision driven
* Trial 2010 – poorly conducted, prejudicial behaviour, rule of law ignored
* Appeal 2011 unsuccessful – irrational findings, repetition of errors at trial; read this discussion of it
* High Court seeking leave 2012 refused – judges misinformed re importance of DNA
* Further right to appeal 2016-2020 – DPP declines opportunity to redress trial errors

# In fact, we argue that there was never a valid, rational reason to charge Sue Neill-Fraser with murder. It is seen as irrational when applying formal logic, as outlined in a detailed 3-part analysis by Benjamin Dean.

Andrew L. Urban is the author of Murder by the Prosecution (Wilkinson Publishing), featuring the case of Sue Neill-Fraser and several others.

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Sue Neill-Fraser appeal to start soon – but will it end the nightmare?

  1. Keith says:

    Andrew, has it been confirmed that the appeal will go ahead in the first week in March as scheduled or has the latest issue in Melbourne compromised the date?
    Now that it is so close, the mainland media and major news outlets need to jump onto it and give it publicity. If it was the Lindy Chamberlain appeal they would be all over it like a cheap suit. 60 minutes, news services, the Sky after dark lot and morning shows should all be highlighting the case. Can anyone in the SNF supporters group or Eve Ash get the publicity machine going?

    • andrew says:

      Nothing has changed so far re the appeal, but in these trigger happy times, and the unpredictable nature of virus outbreaks, nobody can be sure of anything. The legal team is coming from Melbourne and Perth, so uncertainty is high. I myself have made bookings to attend (from Sydney) but nothing is certain. As for media, I do have plans … which will be revealed shortly.

  2. owen allen says:

    Unfortunately, Sue Neill-Fraser is imprisoned in Tasmania, The Island of the Devil, Van Demons Land.
    Lindy Chamberlain was on mainland Australia, and in the news often, reminding people of the injustice,
    Unfortunately Australians are just not on the case of the worst human rights abuse in Australia in 2 decades.
    I spoke with several women in NSW today, unaware of Sue Neill-Fraser.
    I directed them to blogs and websites and the petition.
    I mentioned Tasmanian Corruption, { I have proof} and the older woman, oh loves Tasmania, it is beautiful. but Corruption is everywhere
    I said yes, but Tasmanian Corruption is Totalitarian and have you heard of the Qld Fitzgerald Enquiry.
    Corruption is something that comes back in time like a virus; it is bacterial; case in point, NSW Police busted in Ballina, we hope and pray it never happens again.
    In Tasmania I want Michael Phelan from Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and his troops let loose to scour the turds from the cream in Upper Echelon Tasmania.

  3. Diane Kemp says:

    As the appeal date comes nearer and it appears that Covid cannot be used again to delay it, I believe that more misinformation will be released into the public arena in order to try to discredit Sue’s case before the appeal starts. This could be such a simple decision yet so many people who are supposed to be unbiased are invested in keeping Sue in prison. I sincerely hope the appeal judges can resist any attempt to sway their decision and they openly look at evidence not the disgraceful excuse of a police investigation that occurred followed by a prosecutor who used inference to mislead and a judge who summarised incorrectly to the jury. I hope that Tasmania can finally say we got it wrong!!!

  4. Geraldine Allan says:

    Although public criticisms of prosecution are not limited to “allowing prosecutor Tim Ellis SC to speculate how Neill-Fraser may have murdered Bob Chappell, without any supporting evidence….”, I now continue commenting (from 25/01/21) on your article Andrew, particular relating to community confidence in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    As a refresher for readers, on 23 January 2015 then Premier Will Hodgman together with then Attorney-General, Vanessa Goodwin (now deceased) issued a statement. I note in particular, p3, reads,
    “…Ensuring that the community has confidence in the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions is essential to ensuring that Tasmanians can have confidence in our criminal justice system. If confidence is eroded in the Office of the DPP, confidence in criminal justice system will be undermined. That is why it was so important to act and protect the integrity of the Office. …”

    And, for those who held/hold concerns re life tenure, further on discussion about amendments to the 1973 Act as proposed.
    “…In closing I would also like to take this opportunity to announce the Government will be amending the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1973 to deal with the effective life tenure of the appointment and similarly the government will be amending the Solicitor-General Act 1983 for the same reason.
    In addition to these reforms we will also be looking to potentially remove the obligation to provide full-pay to statutory officers suspended from duty.
    I will have more to say on these reforms in the coming months once we work through the detail.
    I hope that the information that I have provided today has answered many of the questions that the community have.
    Mr Ellis has not been given a payout. He will only receive his accrued annual and long service leave entitlements valued at approximately $290,000.”

    http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/tim_ellis?fbclid=IwAR1LCNQyKg4lPSRvhPnmFMD_NG0OMuKEu3JDMYzVDo40ljDB-pMuAua_XY0

  5. Garry Stannus says:

    Thanks Andrew, obviously the issue of Meaghan Vass’s DNA being on the Four Winds is central to the 2nd appeal. In 2019, Meaghan made admissions (in an interview with 60 Minutes and in a stat. dec. associated with that interview.

    The stat. dec. was submitted as “further evidence” at the ‘eleventh hour’ to Justice Brett, who had reserved his decision as to whether he would grant Sue’s application for leave to make a second appeal. Colin McLaren, the final witness in the series of hearings that had begun in 2017 and finished in early 2019, had just given his evidence over two days (5&6Feb2019) and Justice Brett now had to decide whether to accept the application.

    He was in the midst of his deliberations when he received that stat. dec. from Vass. In his subsequent decision to accept the application Justice Brett had the following to say:

    49. The [further] evidence provided to me consists of an affidavit by Ms Vass. The affidavit purports to have been sworn on 25 February 2019. The affidavit contains direct and detailed admissions of Ms Vass’s involvement in events aboard the Four Winds on the relevant night. In particular, Ms Vass states that she was present on the yacht then with two identified male companions. She witnessed at least one of the males assault Mr Chappell. She recalls seeing a lot of blood. The affidavit does not directly address what became of Mr Chappell. Ms Vass claims that she cannot recall leaving the yacht or what happened after the assault.

    [http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASSC/2019/10.html]

    That sentence, in the above excerpt from Brett J’s decision … “Ms Vass states that she was present on the yacht then with two identified male companions” is (in my view) pivotal. Justice Brett has informed us that Vass’s stat. dec. identifies her two male companions. This, in my view, is a gigantic step forward. I speculate that coming from the sub-cultures that Vass has inhabited since becoming ‘homeless’ at the age of thirteen, she has struggled with the guilt of seeing Susan Neill-Fraser imprisoned for 23 years while being in fear of her own life if she admits to the truth of what she witnessed on the Four Winds by ‘naming names’..

    The evidence on record indicates that Vass had mixed in 2009 with some (perhaps juvenile) groups who engaged in ‘minor crime’ in southern Tasmania, be they young burglars or other.
    She has also admitted in court to having a ‘friend’ (2017) … ‘Sharkie’ the founder(?) of the Devils Henchmen, who, like the Rebels, the Outlaws and the Bandidos have been identified by Tasmanian police as outlaw motorcycle gangs [ https://www.police.tas.gov.au/services-online/outlaw-motorcycle-gangs/mythbusting/ ]. My suggestion is that Vass would know that if she names the two males that she says she was with, she would run the risk of being labelled an (informer) by some of those mentioned above.

    Of course, I have reservations about what comes out of TasPol’s website. I remember a media release – falsely, in my view – claiming that Vass had told the police that she’d recanted from what she’d admitted to in that 60 Minutes interview [see ].

    Having been asked to reconvene the court in order to receive the newly-discovered Vass stat. dec., Justice Brett did so, and after receiving the document, incorporated it into his decision. His decision recognised that it might well be open to the full appeal court to accept that the evidence submitted to Brett J’s court during the 2017-2019 battle to gain leave to make the 2nd appeal … was both fresh and compelling.

    That is not to say that Justice Brett called the evidence ‘fresh and compelling’ … he found that it was fresh and, acknowledging DPP Coates suggestion of Vass’s evidence being perhaps unreliable, he passed it to the full appeal court … for the three of them to decide on the reliability of the evidence that Vass might give (and as well, to decide whether it is ‘fresh and compelling’.

    Here is a reminder of the elements of the 2nd Appeal due to begin at the beginning of Mar2021.
    The Notice of Appeal published in The Mercury includes the following:
    There is fresh and compelling evidence that:
    1.1: Meaghan Vass had boarded the Four Winds, and the deceased was attacked while she was on board.

    Evidence led by the prosecution at trial in relation to:

    1.2: 1.2.1: the results of, and inferences that could be drawn from, DNA testing;
    1.2.2: the results of, and inferences that could be drawn from, Luminol testing;
    1.2.3: a winching reconstruction of the Four Winds was misleading.

    1.3: The dinghy seen near the Four Winds around the time the deceased was attacked was not the Four Winds’ tender.

  6. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    I join with Tom Cairns when he says “ Please Stay with us”.
    What wonderful contributions to your article Andrew and as I respond to it I wish to share with the many who ‘have stayed with us” a wonderful and positive law changing story to come out of Tasmania tonight.
    Congratulations must go to those who listened, believed and fought to change the law for a Tasmanian woman and who were rewarded by their courageous temerity to do so.
    I refer to the Sexual assault survivor and advocate Grace Tame, the 2021 Australian of the Year who can only but instil hope in those of us who are pushing for changes to the ineptness that still exists in the justice system in Tasmania and to bringing to account an appalling group of people who Tom Cairns refers to as “the whole cabal”.
    Laws can be changed that are discriminatory.

    • Keith says:

      Given her success in campaigning against the Tasmanian Government’s judicial system, can we second her to advocate for SNF?
      How is it she can be heard, and rightly so, yet all those pressing for justice for Sue have been ignored for so many years?

      • sandra (edited) says:

        William Hodgeman resigned, only hours after I confronted him, with some “home truths”
        He could have sued me, if i was telling a lie.
        He resigned!!!
        This info, has been offered to the SNF case, but ignored.

        I am accepted to visit Susan at the prison, but, prison made a phone call, when i fronted to see her!- they changed the visitors rule.
        Apparently Susan has 21 visitors, on her list, she now, will only be able to decrease her list x 1 per 3 months, and therefore, once back to 9, i shall be allowed to visit…

        Think about it!.
        They just “didnt stop me” because, of prison policy, they “denied me- subject to a new method of approving visitors- created, as i was standing there, to sign in.
        Hmm, 12 visitors myst be taken off the list, before i can be the 10th person on her “approved list” and then 3 months, to re do the list.
        Thats 39months.

        Id say, they just kept susan, from knowing, how to get legally, free.

        If i can find this info, tell me, why, hasnt her legal counsil, found it!!!

        “Criminals in white wigs, blue suits” and “red coates”…

        The biggest criminals are free and walk into courtrooms daily, as the beholder if truth”…

        Tasmania’s shame…!!!

  7. Geraldine Allan says:

    Andrew, my applause for honouring by remembering and repeating the appalling state of affairs for both Bob and Sue on what is indeed a “bleak 12th anniversary”.

    I’m guessing the “several lawyers”, who have “always maintained her innocence” aren’t invited to join colleagues in the fraternity to coffee at Salamanca.

    Numerous re-gurgitators of the failures of the Tasmanian legal system, have offered strong opinions/comments over the past decade+, yet they apparently continue to fall on deaf ears.

    If as you ask, will March 1, 2021 highlight yet another instance of “… ‘going through the motions’…” does occur, I anticipate outrage and, a far stronger public expression of protest — it won’t be as decorous and retrained as has been to date.

    The family circumstances you list bring me to tears. Systemic, brutal cruelty: wilfully causing pain and suffering to Sue’s much loved and loyal family members and others, following the awful tragic events of Australia Day 2009. Displaying/feeling no concern about it, is part of an entrenched-for-decades DJIR methodology and technique. Who cares is my oft’ repeated rhetorical question?

    Andrew, who is the “former judge” to whom you refer? Your link to https://vimeo.com/80181563, 7 years ago, before the prolonged processes of Application for second appeal, is a refresher. Promo reads: –
    “Unsafe Conviction
    In this 2 minute video you can see & hear leading lawyers Chester Porter QC and Stuart Tipple (both of the famous Chamberlain case with its appalling parallels) expressing their grave & well informed concerns that the murder conviction of Hobart woman Sue Neill-Fraser is profoundly, clearly unsafe.
    Further, Robert Richter QC has personally written to Tasmanian Attorney-General The Hon Brian Wightman urging an independent review.
    Dr Robert N Moles – former Associate Professor of Law, has investigated alleged miscarriages of justice for 14 years, and is the author of Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice, (2010) and A State of Injustice (2004 & 2010) among other books on the subject. “In the book, I set out the law on miscarriages of justice in Australia. I can say with confidence that the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser does not comply with the Australian law on this topic.””

    For emphasis I repeat, Dr Bob Moles says , “…”In the book, I set out the law on miscarriages of justice in Australia. I can say with confidence that the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser does not comply with the Australian law on this topic.”…”

    Referring to the ‘coming soon’ second CCA hearing, the blatancy of the conflicted position of the three Tasmanian Supreme Court judges is astonishing and frightening, to most observers.

    Scandalous and outrageous are the words that jump to mind when reading (then) Blow J sentencing comments telling Sue, “… she deserved an extra-long sentence because she refused to tell the police where to find Bob Chappell’s body. …”. Still to this day, these greatly dismay me each time I’m reminded of them.

    Yet (then) Blow J didn’t stop there, as he continued to severely reprimand thus punish Sue Neill-Fraser. It’s worth repeating for emphasis — He said she made “…it necessary for the police to undertake a very time consuming investigation that involved a large number officers making thorough inquiries over a long period. In my view, the steps that Ms Neill-Fraser took on the night in question to conceal her crime and the inconvenience and expense of the investigation that she made necessary are aggravating factors that I should take into account.”

    Wildly unreasonable are my words.

    As you write, at least the CCA recognised his error, said it was wrong in law, and lessened her sentence and non-parole period accordingly.

    Whilst the phrase “The learned judge” is one of courtesy, I wince when I read them in this context. Taking the word ‘learned’ literally, definitely seems unscholarly title to me, when one considers the magnitude of the errors. Then, considering the pomp and masquerading of the ‘court players’, nothing surprises me.

    Unsure of the word limits to posts, best to finish here for now. I could go on ‘n on ‘n on …

  8. Benjamin Dean says:

    The Trial Judge suggesting “… the means that she adopted to kill Mr Chappell and dispose of his body, …” yet no compelling evidence was presented to the Court to prove Bob Chappell was dead, let alone murdered, as expressed in review by Dr Robert Moles. And no compelling evidence placing Sue on the Four Winds yacht the night BC disappeared was presented at trial. Both Essential Facts, necessary to be proven with evidence, to uphold the Standard of Equality before the Court. And necessary Facts to be established before any inference of guilt has ANY argumentative chance of being the correct conclusion.

    And as a result of the Tas Govt stone wall denial of all Judicial and Police error, Tasmania Justice is instead normalizing a methodology in which cases are now appearing, either on remand, before the Court, or having convictions recorded that are absent of compelling evidence to prove the crime has in Fact occurred, and/or are absent of compelling evidence to place an accused at a crime scene. It is a methodology in which Innocence is not a accepted as valid reason for the Court to grant the Right to one’s liberty.

    Justice, as a pillar of democracy, is crumbling. A Fact that is being Procedurally established in the State of Tasmania.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Oh Ben, Tasmanian Justice has been crumbling for decades, as systemic onlookers have idly sat on their remedial hands/powers, watching on. Currently the system is in shattered pieces on several courtroom floors.

  9. Williambtm says:

    Andrew, at the end of the day the conviction of Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser was solely based upon the hot breath of former DPP Tim Ellis.
    Nil fact evidence, then the acceptance of same by the in-league presiding judge, the circumstantial evidence effectively was an aggregation of inflated nil-consequential and barely applicable circumstantial evidence.
    The entire case was a corruption of the Commonwealth Constituted course of justice.
    as the totality of nonsense.
    I personally am seeking out the former DPP over a matter of perverting the course of justice, when this same DPP had called for the female accused’s case discharge barely 10 minutes after the case matter had been announced… to all present in Tasmania’s Supreme Court. The case goes way back to 2006.
    The said DPP has since fled from Tasmania, now residing in Victoria.

    My research and legal letter-head copied documents, also a copy of this case’s official police department record, bearing its copious detail, thus the entirety of evidence available cannot lie.
    Also, I am biding my time for now on another matter as I have the ‘facts’ in their exquisite detail (case transcripts) that has delivered to me… the name of a certain Tasmanian Supreme Court associate Judge.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      William, for correctness and credence of this record, the 2006 DPP has not, “…since fled from Tasmania, now residing in Victoria.”
      FACT — he was observed a week or so ago, shortly after midday, at Launceston Aquatic Centre, doing laps. I’ll write no more.
      Maybe you are referring to somebody other than the then DPP.

  10. michael allen says:

    I am still a supporter for Justice, Andrew.
    Release Sue Neill-Fraser.
    Australia needs Federal;- Whistleblower Protection,
    Independent Commission Against Corruption; (With Power)
    Criminal Case Review Commission
    and a Federal Royal Commission of Tasmania; to investigate corruption, nepotism, cronyism and criminal activity within and connected to political party members, politicians, Tasmania Police, Bureaucrats and people in private enterprise connected to these Public Servants.
    I have enough evidence to kickstart an enquiry; two separate issues over 14 years.
    But nobody wants to know. I can not force my issue.

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      Michael, is your evidence on the public record? If so, I am one who would like to know what it is?

      • owen allen says:

        Thanks Geraldine.
        I contributed to “The Nixon Enquiry”, 1997.
        Peter Nixon made a report known as “The Nixon Report”.
        I have not read the report, but my contribution from a working class layman, hand written, but included photographs and documents.
        167 pages, titled ” Enough is Enough”, Without Fear or Favour.
        There will be a copy somewhere unless they binned it.
        That was the first measure or case experience.
        The second measure or case experience with corrupted TasPol
        I have not correlated the files I have yet; I was too badly traumatised suffering depression and anxiety, but I have the hard copy of a lot of my experience.
        The biggest factor being, Case 1 or Measure 1, intertwine with Case 2 or Measure 2; as can be expected with TasPol.
        My mental health is just so much better now, but yet I still struggle to cope in life with little things like registering vehicles on time.
        My issue basically is Human Rights Abuse in Tasmania.
        Royal Commission Tasmania.
        cheers, Owen aka Michael Allen

    • Tom Cairns says:

      In a nutshell, Michael, it is all those things. But don’t think you are alone in banging your head against the wall.
      Justice Blow’s promotion to “chief” looks very like a swipe at all the protesters of this ugly affair. One can’t help wondering if it was because of us that he got the pay-rise, but the real horror is the fact that these guys are all into the public coffers, the bottomless pit, the trough, and that includes the inept police officers and the DPP, the whole cabal in fact.
      When you see the manner of interrogation and put that with the ghastly summary by the bench in Susan’s original trial, how she ‘callously’ would not say where she disposed of her partner’s body etc, then it might be better if they took up writing novels or plays. They could start with Stephen King for ideas, the genre is about the same.
      And something else, those same dark minds are in control, which is why they are unable to recognize an honest and educated lady with only her own innate goodness to sustain her.

      • Geraldine Allan says:

        For the record, without in any way appearing to support then Blow J’s errors during trial/sentencing, his appointment to CJ was because of his seniority as a Supreme Court judge in the ‘pecking order’.

        The hierarchical climb to CJ goes like this — depending on time of appointment, when a sitting CJ retires, the next longest-sitting judge slides into the CJ chair, as easily as that.

        Without double-checking, my recollection is the Blow CJ is nearing retirement age. In his most recent Annual Report, he advocated for the raising of judicial retirement age to 75. I rest my case.

        • Tom Cairns says:

          Thank you Geraldine. I am actually glad to know that and I realise that I am not privy to such information. My attitude is based on past experience in government administrative circles elsewhere. That is why my remark was put as a question or suggestion.
          Please stay with us. Numbers count and we are at last, hopefully, in countdown mode.

      • owen allen says:

        Thanks Tom, yes I agree, enough victims in Tasmania for a class action.
        But I have to use the portals to get on public record my thoughts
        and aspirations for a Federal Royal Commission Tasmania.
        Enough is Enough.
        It is time to “Round Up the Old Boys”, and put them in the OK Corral.
        Thugs and murderers roam the streets and cowards and liars. walk the hallways.
        For the record, my mental illness from trauma in Tasmania induced obsessive-compulsive disorder, and as soon as I have saved cash from working I buy another Harley Davidson motorcycle.
        I need an L39 Albatross.

        i

  11. Rosemary says:

    The list of issues is long, as yo have described. This should have been sorted a long time ago. Dragged out and dragged out with delay after delay. Bob Moles has offered a simple solution that has occured in other cases of appeal. The crown accepts the fresh and compelling evidence and just gets on with the release of the wrongly convicted person in a simple judgement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.