An almost comically hapless document from the Tasmanian DPP’s office has been lodged with the High Court in response to the application seeking leave from Sue Neill-Fraser, as legal academic Dr Bob Moles found.
The document contains various words, references and expressions which are clearly in error. The document is signed by D G Coates SC Director of Public Prosecutions and Jack Shapiro of the DPP’s office. It is difficult to understand how they failed to notice the obvious errors in this document. They are as follows:
Neill-Fraser v The State of Tasmania –Crown Response to application for special leave, filed 28 January 2022
Point 1 refers to “points of special impmiance”. It should read “points of special importance”.
Point 2 refers to “the comi below”. It should read “the court below”. It states “There was no dispute between the pmiies”. It should read “between the parties”.
Point 3 states “defence counsel being unable to speak with an expe1i” –this should read “defence counsel being unable to speak with an expert”.
Point 4 refers to “a substantial miscan-iage of justice” – it should be “a substantial miscarriage of justice”.
Point 7 refers to the cases of “Van Beelen; lvlickelberg” –the second reference should be Mickelberg.
Point 8 g says “however gave” it should be “however she gave”
Point 10 states “In contrast to Van Beelan” – it should read “In contrast to Van Beelen”
Point 12 refers to the “difference between the two expe1is” it should read “difference between the two experts
It also says “Mr Jones evidence supp01is the proposition” which should read Mr Jones evidence supports the proposition”
Point 13 reads “her counsel told the comi below” which should read “her counsel told the court below”
Point 15 refers to “Estcomi J” which should read “Estcourt J”.
Point 23 refers to “the Comi below” which should read “the Court below”
Point 26 states “Both expe1is agreed” which should read “both experts agreed” It also states “deposited or transfeITed to the yacht” which should read “transferred to the yacht” It also refers to “Estcomi J” which should read “Estcourt J”
Point 34 states “to have been transfe1Ted to the yacht” which should read “transferred to the yacht”
Point 35 states “to be transfe1Ted” which should read “to be transferred”
Point 43 states “Fmiher His Honour” which should perhaps read “Further His Honour” It also states “that improve the prospects” when it should be “that improved the prospects” It also states “the ji-esh evidence” which should read “the fresh evidence”
Point 44 correctly cites “Van Beelen” and then has two references to “Van Beelan” It also refers to “a properly instructed jwy” which should read “a properly instructed jury”
Part V refers to the case of “Van Beef en v R” which should be “Van Beelen”
There are some minor errors of punctuation and the appearance of random bold letters in the submission which are not referred to specifically.
The application seeking leave refers to the 2010 conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009.