Sue Neill-Fraser’s Melbourne-based instructing solicitor, Paul Galbally’s travel hopes to attend her new appeal against her 2010 murder conviction in Hobart’s Supreme Court from March 1 improved markedly today as Tasmania lifted the high risk level restrictions on travellers from Victoria, no longer requiring a 14 day quarantine on arrival. Barrister Tom Percy QC from Perth, is also free to travel to Tasmania without restrictions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is investigating the best way to manage accommodating as many people as possible for the appeal. “There have been requests that we live-stream the appeal,” according to a spokesperson today, “and we are actively working on that possibility as well, but there are many issues that arise when court proceedings are live-streamed and what we are trying to do right now is address them. However, it may not be possible to overcome them, but we are trying. Otherwise, our arrangements will be confined to the court buildings and organising a balance between public and media observers.”
I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up because I believe we may get a hearing BUT, I verdict! My gut feeling is that the judges will go away and some time in the future we will get to a verdict. I do hope I am wrong.
Great news! I’m coming down too! I have heard from the media liaison person at the S Court that a second court will be opened and equipped for live streaming, but seats will still be limited. Fingers crossed!
Yes Robin, thanks for this. However, I point out that over the five years of the 2nd Appeal saga, the Court has on a number of occasions made extra space available for those who could not fit inside the actual courtroom where hearings have been held. Once I was able to get a seat in an adjacent/nearby court and watched the actual proceedings on video screen. I could actually hear better than when on previous occasions I’d been in the courtroom-proper. Others, more recently, have been placed in a jury room.
Of course, there are downsides to a ‘fixed-camera’ presentation: not being able to glance across the faces to gauge how someone reacts to a particular statement.
Robin, you write
“I have heard from the media liaison person at the S Court that a second court will be opened and equipped for live streaming, but seats will still be limited.”
I thought that ‘live streaming’ meant that video is sent over the Internet in real time, without first being recorded and stored. In other words, that the outside world can watch it live.
I wonder if the court’s media liaison person was confusing the term ‘live streaming’ with (closed circuit) ‘live video’?
My best wishes to you, Robin, and I’m looking forward to meeting up with you again on 1Mar2021.
The whole case … it’s such a sad, sad thing. We have found dismay, outrage, anger and contempt along the way. Also we have found companionship in fellow-travellers, delight at various hard-won incidental victories and respect for Sue, who has, within her prison, shown a humanity towards her fellow prisoners which has helped them survive and on release, find new life.
What a world we live in! I have had difficulty in understanding DPP Daryl Coate’s position.
Q Does he persist in endlessly maintaining that Sue is guilty?
A He seems to.
Here the question of ‘model ligitant’ arises and that suggests that we might wonder whether our (Tas) DPP is committed to conviction rather than justice. It’s (perhaps) a stupidity of our Tasmanian system that our last two DPPs have stood in court to personally prosecute the case against Susan Neill-Fraser. They, the persons who have authorised the ongoing prosecution of SN-F, have (by both arguing the case personally in court) … they have both – I suggest – boxed themselves in to permanently arguing against any evidence that might – and has, and will – come into the court.
Look, Robin, at the common symbol for justice. It is the statue above the English Court. There are the scales, meant to be balanced by the evidence presented on either side. And there is the sword. Should we expect Justitia to wear a blindfold? Should it represent turning a ‘blind eye’ to judicial shortcomings as is suggested (by the Supreme court of the USA)? Or should it represent a blindness to factions, ‘ears open’ to all evidence, rather than having eyes for one’s mates?
We need an Inquiry, now!
It is telling that there are several respected legal minds who question the conviction publicly, none that defend it. Except, of course, the Office of the DPP. But of course defending the conviction, contrary to evidence and the demands of justice, is essential in defending the reputations of all those who perpetrated this obvious, egregious and unforgivable miscarriage of justice.
It is 2021 ! Well, in the rest of Australia anyhow !
How difficult can it be to live stream?
When one considers the zoom meetings & other, that have been quickly organised over the past year, together with other services including church & funerals, I cannot comprehend the difficulties, which have not been specified.
This CCA hearing is a public hearing to which citizens are entitled to attend. If for reasons of COVIDSafe guidelines, all members of public cannot be accommodated, then surely it is fair to expect the court to facilitate open court by other means.
Let us hope there are no more delays to Sue’s Appeal.
But even when Sue is found not Guilty there needs to be a
Federal Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate suspect incarcerations no matter which state or territory they occur.
I concur!!! My heart and prayers go out to Sue and her family … come on Australia … let’s bring Sue home!!! What an injustice this has been.
I’d like to be as sure of winning Tatts that the Tasmanian authorities will not be able to arrange a live stream of the appeal. It would go against every action they have taken in this case. Still we can live in hope.
Keith, I have to agree with you. I had been requested to investigate a 2006 case where the accused had 18 charges laid against her by the Detective Sergeant that had begun his investigation into the many counts of theft. (15.)
To cut the story short the Investigating officer was transferred to Hobart from his police posting that had been up around Launceston way, hence there had been no further investigation.
The why of it is still a very suspicious cause to transfer the diligent investigating police detective for an administrative posting in Hobart.
On the morning of the day of the accused’s Supreme Court hearing, the former DPP had discharged the accused from each and all of the other more serious charges.. one being a charge of attempted murder, all the charges had been absolved by the announcement to the people this case is discharged.
I have very serious doubt about the due process of justice being accorded a chance by this State’s injudicious judiciary, but given the number of prominent Barristers on hand to witness the appeal…along with the Megan Vass evidence hovering above this last appeal, the State’s judiciary appointees will come to their senses and declare that Ms. Sue Neill-Fraser is freed from serving out the rest of her sentence.