Andrew L. Urban.
August 12, 2022: The High Court today refused Sue Neill-Fraser leave to appeal her 2010 murder conviction for the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappell. The devastating decision comes eight days before the 13th anniversary of her arrest. (And two days before the 2019 six-part Ch. 7 docuseries on the case, Undercurrent, finally becomes available in Tasmania – see below.)
The Court, comprising Justices Gageler, Steward and Gleeson, refused special leave to appeal. The Court stated that the principles applying to a second appeal based on fresh evidence are established and that it was not persuaded that there were sufficient prospects of demonstrating that the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in applying those principles.
In a statement issued after the decision, Sue’s daughter Sarah Bowles said, “Mum has been brave and stoic for 13 years in jail, always maintaining her innocence, and we will not be deterred in our efforts to overturn what is a clear miscarriage of justice.”
The statement said the judicial system is not equipped to deal inquisitorially into the actual truth. That is a function only discharged by a properly constituted independent inquiry, as was demonstrated in the Chamberlain and Eastman cases. Sarah Bowles said, “Australia needs a better way to handle wrongful convictions such as the British system provides. Every Australian should be concerned by this case. We will continue to fight to press for an Independent Commission of Inquiry.”
At the 2012 seeking special leave to appeal, then Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC convinced the two sitting justices of the High Court that he and the trial judge were right to refuse recalling Meaghan Vass to give further evidence as to how her DNA came to be at the crime scene, after new information came to light about her whereabouts (see ADDENDUM below). Leave was refused (a cause for regret among some judges).
Today, Vass again turned up at the High Court’s door, featuring in errors at the 2021 Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal, as claimed in the grounds of seeking special leave to appeal (see below), all about her DNA – again.
High Noon at High Court
In High Noon, the classic 1952 Western, Gary Cooper as the courageous Marshal Will Kane, has to face an outlaw gang due in town on the noon train. So it was High Noon this morning at the High Court in Canberra. It wasn’t just the justices on the video screens, Sue Neill-Fraser was ultimately facing the gang of lawless cowboys masquerading as the Tasmanian legal establishment. The gang had pursued her for 13 years, trampling on the rule of law, making up stories about her murderous behaviour, setting vicious watchdogs on anyone trying to help her or even just tell the full story. Much of old Hobart town watched in cowered silence. As the town did in High Noon. This time, the outlaw gang won the shoot-out … but in the eyes of many, remain discredited, despised outlaws.
The High Court’s decision is not only devastating for Neill-Fraser, her family, friends, and tens of thousands of her supporters, it shines the spotlight on the 2:1 dismissal of Neill-Fraser’s 2021 appeal and in particular, Justice Estcourt’s logical dissenting opinion which is echoed in the grounds put before the High Court:
Reading Part 3 of the application, the summary of the case, the High Court ought perhaps to have considered why at trial and the subsequent appeal, the DPP made every effort to diminish or dismiss the DNA evidence that put Vass at the crime scene? It was never suggested that then homeless 16 year old Vass was the killer. The logical answer is that her presence (even without her damning eye witness testimony that Neill-Fraser was not there) is powerful evidence of a reasonable alternative hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
That would have required the trial judge to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Subsequent efforts (by the ODPP and senior police spokesmen) may be seen as further attempts to protect the conviction. The conviction stands, but confidence in the legal system does not.
Justice Estcourt’s Conclusion (extracts)
“426 The relevant provisions of the Code are set out earlier in my reasons. The question may be distilled as one of whether Mr Jones’s evidence concerning the nature and quality of the DNA sample taken from the walkway of the Four Winds on 30 January 2009 and as to the likelihood of its secondary transfer, is fresh and compelling evidence within the meaning of s 402A of the Code, and whether if so, that evidence demonstrates a miscarriage of justice.
459 Having regard to the evidence at the accused’s trial and the closing addresses of counsel and the learned trial judge’s summing up, I am of the view, after taking into account the fresh and compelling evidence of Mr Jones, that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
461 Had Mr Jones’s evidence been before the jury, the Crown case could not have been left to the jury with the reasonable hypothesis raised by the defence as to Ms Vass being present on the yacht trivialised as it was, as a “red herring”. Had the jury been exposed to expert evidence that secondary transfer of Ms Vass’s DNA on the sole of someone’s shoe would have been a “very rare occurrence” requiring a very specific and immediate concatenation [linked together] of steps …
463 In my view, on an objective assessment of the record, and recognising the limitations in doing so, after taking into account the fresh and compelling evidence of Mr Jones, there is a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, might have acquitted the appellant had the fresh evidence been before it at the trial.
465 I would uphold the appeal and quash the appellant’s conviction for murder.”
Full report on the 2021 appeal
Grounds of High Court seeking leave appeal 2022
Ground 1: The Court below, having accepted that the prosecution led evidence about secondary DNA transfer at trial without having complied with the duty of disclosure and over objection, erred in holding that the evidence that the applicant relied on before it was not fresh evidence.
Ground 2: The Court below, having received evidence that the circumstances required to produce the DNA profile critical to the defence case required a rational explanation of specific events with a sufficient connection between the obtaining of the sample and its deposit, erred in holding that the evidence that the applicant relied on before it was not compelling evidence.
Ground 3: The Court below, in light of the matters addressed in Grounds 1 and 2, erred in holding that there had not been a substantial miscarriage of justice in circumstances where there was no rational basis to reject the conclusion that Meaghan Vass had been on the Four Winds at the relevant time.
These grounds focus on the DNA evidence, raising the following question:
If at the time of the trial, the jury had known that Vass had in fact been on the boat at some stage, is there a reasonable possibility it could have influenced the jury in arriving at their verdict?
Clearly Vass could have been on the boat at some time unconnected to the disappearance of Bob Chappell; she could have been there on her own, or with others. “The point is that now we don’t know which of those are real possibilities, and what the jury might have made of them. If the DNA is sufficient to create a doubt about the evidence they were given at trial, that is sufficient to set the verdict aside.
“If the DNA is a primary deposit, the DPP would have no objective basis upon which to say that it could NOT have been deposited contemporaneously with the commission of a crime – how could he know what time ‘the crime’ was committed? It is the inability to exclude that which opens up the reasonable ‘possibility’ of an explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused. If such a possibility exists, then in a circumstantial case, that is a barrier to the conviction of the accused,” comments Dr Bob Moles.
The Crown’s use of a circular argument in this case is also of concern; this error was overlooked by the trial judge. The body of Bob Chappell was not found. No murder weapon was presented to the jury. We say, not knowing the time of death, the Crown could not prove she was even at the crime scene. The Crown speculated that Neill-Fraser was on the yacht at the relevant time; the case starts with the conclusion it is trying to prove, this is what we say is impermissible circular argument.
Likewise, the prosecutor’s speculation was inadmissible, and a further error by the judge to allow it. With much of the forensic evidence inadmissible, the case is awash with appealable errors, most of which could well be High Court material.
This decision by the High Court follows the nolle prosequi entered earlier in the week as the 5-year old pervert course of justice charges were dropped against Hobart solicitor Jeff Thompson, who had worked on the Neill-Fraser case. Thompson’s barrister David Edwardson QC commented “Finally when the Judgements are published everyone will appreciate how misconceived this prosecution was and why the conduct of TASPOL in the context of this case is so reprehensible …. (Thompson’s) life and career was turned upside down by illegal conduct the details of which will be published in due course.”
The six-part docuseries, Undercurrent, premiered on January 30, 2019 (Channel 7) but was geoblocked in Tasmania. It will be now shown again on Channel 7, including in Tasmania, starting on Sunday 14 August at 10.40pm, AND all episodes are now on 7plus.
Produced by Missing Man Productions’ Eve Ash and Sydney based CJZ Productions, Undercurrent, is gripping from the start, showing the cinematic flair Ash demonstrated with her award winning 2013 doco on the same subject, Shadow of Doubt. That film raised doubts about the police investigation. This series leaves no doubt: they charged the wrong suspect.
ADDENDUM – HIGH COURT 2012
On September 7, 2012, commencing at 11.47am by videolink between Canberra and Hobart, French CJ and Crennan J heard oral arguments seeking special leave to appeal. M.J. Croucher SC and T.J. Ellis SC appeared on behalf of Sue Neill-Fraser.
Croucher opened by summing up the ground of appeal, referring to the refusal to allow Meaghan Vass to be recalled for further questioning.
MR CROUCHER: Your Honours, the special leave questions in this matter concern the appropriate tests to be applied by a trial judge upon considering an application that a witness be recalled and, in turn, how a Court of Criminal Appeal deals with a refusal thereof.
In our respectful submission, where the Court of Criminal Appeal went wrong such that it was simply a manifestly wrong decision … where his Honour said that, as far as he was concerned, it seemed that what the witness was doing on the night of 26 January seems to be peripheral when her version of events unshakably, says his Honour, was that she was not on the boat or anywhere near anywhere like that and that ultimately, he said, there is no realistic prospect of it making any difference if she were recalled.
The Court of Criminal Appeal effectively agreed in that view … So that the fact that DNA of this witness was found on the yacht, on the walkway, was a very important consideration in the first instance because it pointed to a hypothesis consistent with her innocence, namely, that someone else was involved, or at the very least someone else had been involved in an unauthorised entry.
Ellis gave the court the benefit of his speculation:
Now, the only question of her credit that could arise was did she or did she not tell the institutional accommodation where she was to be that night correctly? Had she done it in the past? When it is in the course of, clearly, several days of absence and never returning to that accommodation, in my submission, it is a nothing piece of evidence. But her credit as to that insofar as it might be affected would not advance her to be a reasonable alternative suspect to this crime in these circumstances. There is just no other connection besides DNA, one piece of DNA; no fingerprints, nothing else, and a piece of DNA found in a common walkway, not in relation to the real scene of the crime which was below decks …
He continues his completely unfounded (and impermissible) speculation about “the manipulation of a tender, a dinghy, to remove the body” … and then adds:
The question of break‑ins was, in my submission, a furphy – dismissing the very reason Vass and her companions were on the yacht.
The transcript suggests that the learned justices had not been fully briefed on the details of the case. But let’s get to the nub of the matter as it relates to our purpose here – namely to be reminded how the court’s refusal to grant leave came about.
The critical exchange:
FRENCH CJ: The question is whether the defence was deprived of the opportunity to elicit evidence which might have been supportive of a hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
MR ELLIS: It would only work on the basis in an unfair way. Through the written submissions of my learned friend it is asserted that the witness had lied to the court about her whereabouts. There is just no basis to say that. You can see from that the tenor of what would have been in court. A young girl says, “I’m not sure, I’m homeless and have been since 13, I’m confused”. “You have lied”.
The High Court had been blindsided.
Crennan J concluded:
At her trial in the Supreme Court before Blow J, the case against the applicant was mainly circumstantial. DNA evidence had been found at the scene of the crime that matched another person, Ms Vass. The latter was 15 years old at the time of the deceased’s disappearance, and had been homeless since she was 13. After Ms Vass gave evidence at trial, further evidence was given by a police officer suggesting that there were certain inconsistencies in Ms Vass’ account of her location on the night of the deceased’s disappearance. That evidence was ultimately ruled inadmissible.
On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the applicant contended, among other things, that a miscarriage of justice resulted from the prosecutor’s failure to recall Ms Vass. The Court of Criminal Appeal unanimously rejected that ground of appeal. The applicant now applies for special leave to appeal from that decision.
In our view, this application does not give rise to a question suitable to a grant of special leave as the applicant has not shown that she was denied an opportunity to produce evidence on a point of substance which can be shown to have had a significant possibility of affecting the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, special leave is refused.
At 12.35pm the matter was concluded. Those 48 minutes stretched into 10 more years behind bars for Sue Neill-Fraser.
I am forming a new MC, Motorcycle Club 100%ers, with a non riding branch, card holders so to speak if you dont ride. Many of you can patch up straight away, you have served your time and proved your worth to wear the patch; I did read some where, When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty; that must be historic, the bikers claim the same and they have a right; to resist, totalatarianism.
I am talking to you brother, and you sister, and you know who you are; and we have a common bond, we share the faith. I will keep you informed, but I released info locally where I live, ” they sent me mad, so I bought motorcycles”, and a message to Sue Neill- Fraser, Sister Sue, we are coming for you, through hell or high water, whatever it takes sister, it does not matter, we are coming for you Sister Sue. Owen.
If youse would like to read a FULL account–read the FULL description of the the events and outcomes in FULL right to the end result– you will find a detailed description of Police Lying -fabricating – manipulation of witnesses- complete DOGS VOMIT –ABSOLUTELY AMAZING DISHONESTY–And not in Hobart -Londinium Town Police shoot totally innocent man on his way to work– 11 shots in total –mostly into his face. NOW USE YOUR IMAGINATIONS–Read the FULL story–the stinking vomitious gutless rubbish– emitting from the SYSTEM– a lot of the process is similar to that used on OUR SUE– gutless self serving swine–straight out of the same training rituals–attracts the same type of 2nd. Class Human–I quite like DOGS !
I have not had the chance to read all of thus 12th August article and comments by the Australian public however it is plain to see that the Justice system in Tassie is seriously floored and my confidence in the High Court is no longer sound.
Can someone explain to me why after all of this time Vass has still chosen not to name those two guys who were on the yacht with her that fateful night?
I might have missed something so can someone update me?
Another question, what can we do as Australian citizens to show our support collectively to get a Royal Commission underway for Sue?
I would like to give you a big hug Sue from one mother and grandmother to another … you have been robbed by this injustice of valuable time with your children and grandchildren.
Sarah, Sue’s daughter’s comment is correct “the judicial system is not equipped to deal inquisitorially into the actual truth. That is a function only discharged by a properly constituted independent inquiry” – although correct I would suggest it should be the role of THE POLICE to deal inquisitorially into the actual truth – what a shame and travesty that they have not! Maintaining their position in relation to Sue has been more important than finding the truth, although many who know about the case believe there are some personnel in TASPOL who DO know the truth Let us hope they have the courage to assist it coming out soon.
You may well suggest that the inquisitive role be taken by the police Judy, but with due respect they have had in excess of a decade on this case to prove their competency and fundamental honesty, and have shown to be left wanting.
While being a fundamental case for Tasmania, the processes and proceedings have illuminated all Australians to the inadequate practices of cowardly closing ranks in support of cultural and choreographed venality and fundamental criminality, within all aspects of other states and federal policing also. The crisis is national. Untrustworthy senior managers and executives influential in destroying faith in a necessary service to the degree that underlings are openly manipulated and misused so blatantly confirms beyond any doubt that policing services can never be entrusted to impartially or professionally carry out any investigations on any matter to an honest or just conclusion.
Sue Neill Frasers case is morphing into another classic example. Realistically Australia is in dire need of a dramatic cultural revolution in our public service sector, and unless that becomes apparent our dynamic decline is cemented.
The insidious creep of accepted criminality, supported by incorrect flows of truthful information has, and continues to regress and devalue the moral compass of our once proud nation, and heading the charge, like
back in the Kelly hunt days at Sebastopol near Beechworth, are our incredible law enforcement predominants, and their cowardly conforming foot soldiers, who in many cases still strive for credibility and public recognition irrespective of their exposed, gross incompetence.
Sue Neill-Fraser’s appeal for leave to the High Court was rejected on the grounds that an appeal would be unlikely to have succeeded. That judgement can only be made if the appeal had been allowed and didn’t succeed in fact. Otherwise, the statement is circular.
In Neill Fraser’s case, who was convicted on circumstantial evidence only, there needs to be only one possibility, that only the accused could have committed the crime. There may not be any plausible alternative. But there was a plausible alternative, that a gang of youths given to robbing yachts in the presumed absence of anyone on board, made a ghastly mistake: Bob Chappell was on board, according to a witness who admitted she was there at the time, and in a scuffle Chappell was killed. That account was sworn to in court – and then next day retracted what she had said. Even if she was telling the truth in her retraction, she did clearly outline a distinct possibility of how Chappell was killed that excluded Neill-Fraser, and that should have resulted in the withdrawal of the charge.
The High Court also stated that they are not there to seek the truth; it is not an inquisitorial court. That is a shocking admission. Surely an accused’s guilt or innocence is indeed a matter of fact: did she or didn’t she? Under our adversarial system, the accused’s fate then turns on purely technical issues, on which lawyers win the “what is fresh and compelling evidence”, for example. Some countries do use an inquisitorial systems: the court’s job is precisely to discover the truth. Had Neill-Fraser been tried in such a court she undoubtedly would not have been convicted.
If any good can be retrieved from the Neill-Fraser case it is that we should look again at our adversarial system. How an inquisitorial system works, and why it is more just than our adversarial system, is explained in Our Corrupt Legal System (2010) by legal historian Evan Whitton.
Excellent analysis, John. I agree with all of it.
Me too … excellent points from John Biggs.
Rejected; email address could not be verified
What a despicable State Tasmania is now. I was born and lived my first 32 years there and now disown the place. All I can think of is that the guilty party must be somebody with exceptional and influencial connections. Obviously being protected by those in power. Tasmanians should stand up and demand a proper enquiry. One day the guilty party will be revealed, but sadly it may be too late for Sue.
A black sky with just a few stars in it.
The moon, clear and full as I’ve never seen it,
is sinking into the west.
Yesterday, I greeted the day with hope
while now I’m sitting in the pre-dawn:
I’m watching a night-time end.
And another day will start
and another night will come
And another day will start.
And so on.
When and how will it end?
I like it Garry. You sum up the mood of endless rotating of improbabilities but there is a glimmer of hope, faint but possible.
Hi Andrew Justice was not seen to be done for Susan, Bob and family.
Susan Neil Frasers predators may well believe truth will not emerge it will!
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated after her baby daughters ‘AZARIA’S matinee jacket
was found (five years later) near a dingos den? With a delivered finding (fourth inquest) 12 June 2012; CoronerElizabeth Morris delivered her findings that Azaria Chamberlain had been taken and killed by a dingo
The Jacket said to be worn by Azaria by her Mother! Although Lindy Chamberlain was not believed by ‘Prosecution’. Lindy Chamberlain accused of ‘being fanciful’..
Tasmanian Police disappeared evidence.DNA?
Which brings me back to, was the DNA on the cloth used to wipe Ms Vass’s mouth (we all saw her say it didn’t we?) after throwing up on the Deck of Four winds?
DNA like a so called dinner- size plate “foot”?
Supposing transferable to an illogical narrative?
Was the known evidence of ‘the cloth’ with somebodies DNA on it; a bit hot to keep?
Did findings that exonerates show its hand as a “matinee jacket” crucial type DNA not fanciful at all? DNA proving Sues innocence ..?
Where is it?
Who’s DNA is it?
Personally I don’t understand how the
dear policey men didn’t quickly seize and then lose the matinee jacket–another example of policeymen incompetents–at least the Tasmanian–swine were competent enough to “lose” an inconvenient truth .
Andrew, if you wrote an succinct opinion piece for the Mercury explaining to Tasmanians why this is so wrong, do you reckon they would print it?
Very unlikely..for a variety of reasons
A sad day really Andrew. I’m with Sue’s daughter Sarah, “ Mum has been brave and stoic for 13 years….we will not give up……”. “Every Australian should be concerned by this case”. The law appears senseless. With no body ever being found and eminent judges finding room for “fresh and compelling evidence” yet the highest court in the land still refutes an appeal. What is law I ask? How can legally trained eminent members of the judiciary be ‘wrong’. I ask again, ‘What is law?
How could one resist but to answer–
— THE LAW IS AN ASS !
Well well well. The murderous granny must remain locked up. Too bad/s
TIL all about a global Innocence Fraud Industry.
I guess you conspiratorial numbskulls are all fine with continuing to be a part of that illustrious occupation. Gouge away.
Thank you High Court judges.
Can’t resist publishing this comment … we all need a laugh.
Andrew, was that Sue low or so low?
Sue the lowest of the low
Seems to be some confusion about a ‘Sue low’..or ‘Sue so low’…or a Sue of some other kind???
That comment may only have been Sarcastic despair– sunk the boot into a few morons ! A cry of anguish no less ?
For example–Thank you High Court Judges–means ” Thanks for nothing” Have known persons– masters of Sarcasm–can be very sneaky in making a point ! Murderous Granny- – if it wasn’t all so sad– one could burst out laughing !
You would have to be one of the most Sarcastic swine–but at the same time amusingly clever- ” murderous granny” and ” Thanks for nothing judges ” Pity its all such a tragic miscarriage of justice !(makes it hard to laugh )
I am lost for words, where to from here? This is just bullshit.
National Criminal Case Review Commission, worlds best practise, Australia lags behind.
What this boils down to is that: The powers that be, would rather keep a potentially innocent person in Prison, than risk getting some egg on their faces! This does not show any kind of commitment to Justice and undermines our faith in the System! We would respect them much more if they made a genuine, if belated, effort to re-examine all available including new evidence, Without Bias. It would be much better for them to be prepared to admit, that “we have a number of unsolved “Cold” cases, on our books”. This should not be a case of proudly ticking the box “solved”, even when there is significant doubt.
Sorry to hear this. I will be watching Channel 7’s broadcast at 10.40pm.
This is gut wrenching. I’m so sorry for Sue Neill-Fraser that she is faced with this High Court decision.
I feel for Sue and the whole mess is far worse than people realise.
Tasmania allowed an innocent Martin Bryant to go to gaol. He was not trained with the type of guns used is still there.
This should give Sue’s supports an idea of the difficulties Sue is up against.
The judge in the trial which the jury found Sue guilty did not make mistakes.
This is how the system works when the police and prosecution build a case around a chosen and nominated person.
The police generally start with those closest to the victim and as soon as they can, move in. In Sue’s case all because she got a couple of things wrong while suffering trauma.
Crowd funding for a civil case against the police, judges and prosecution. $millions.
Can the Privy Council help? I guess not, those days may be over.
How does Robert Richter feel?
Martin Bryant will go to heaven then–I was hoping to meet him in hell–ask him how he acquired the rifle that had bern in the possession of the SA POLICE ?
Bunny, Brother Whalensky poor set up bunny, social misfit extra low iq. I am in the same game; other side of the fence. My iq above 62. Started when I was about 12. Nothing is impossible, but very trying
,just keep pushing on until the bullet hits, in the forehead please. Lol.
Bunny Brother–You not wrong Owen–my Oberleutnant often informs me that I’m as silly as a bunny rabbit–but she’s a Prussian Maidenfuehren–say no more ! IQ of 62 ain’t all that bad you know– wisdom far more important . And none of that defeatist talk–thats my prerogative. Always like to read your contributions in support of Our dear Sue ❤️. We have to thank Mr Andrew for the marvellous work he does ! Close to a saint ?
How does Robert Richter feel? Probably: “Well I blew that case. Twice.”
John, the best in Australia are attempting to fight injustice throughout Australia. Australia is rife of corruption Federal and State. The Gunfight at the OK Corral will be the Gunfight DownUnder. Suck that.
And they knew it years ago, so Gun Control came in via Port Arthur and bunny Martin Bryant.
Suck that and come back.
Like the majority of your readers I am massively disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court. (the High Court)
The only positive thing to say is that I still believe absolutely that Sue Neill-Fraser WILL eventually be found NOT Guilty.
The establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is now even more important than ever.
This is such a sad day for the justice system in Australia. Surely the Tasmanian government now needs to establish an inquiry into the whole case. There are just so many unanswered questions about this case that have never been addressed or answered.
Tragic to again witness what is seemingly the entrenchment of judicial procedure by authorities, when words used again raise more questions than they answer. ” The applicant has not shown that she was denied an opportunity to produce evidence on a point of substance which can be shown to have had a significant possibility of affecting the jury’s verdict.”
Given the exposed questionable practices and procedures of potentially/probable venal Tasmanian policing and judicial authorities from the onset of inquiries, and Sue, sadly, along with many others, having some accepted degree of faith in procedural manoeuvres at that particular time, in what is now widely recognised as a grossly tainted and illegitimate reflection of legal professionalism, morality, and justice, surely being denied all accrued factual evidence, and either appeased or deceived from the outset by inquisitors and functionaries, has some recognisable degree of fundamental relevance.
Our national history is trashily polluted with examples of amorality and adulterated procedural practices from the earliest of colonial days, with the disgraced Rum Corps while in our infancy, leading the charge in the maintenance of the brutality, exploitation, and extortion of the original inhabitants, along with those criminalised vassals transported to populate and progress the interests of the British Empire. Two hundred and thirty four years later it is as if we have barely humanely advanced an iota, when these proceedings and other active cases and inquiries are considered.
Remain as strong as you have been in the past Sue Neill Fraser. Nihilism may well be the preferred cultured and choreographed ideology of the terrorising elements among many of our cowardly conforming policing and judicial administrators and practitioners, but you are never alone, and constantly in our thoughts.
Your Verbosity is startling–you could have been helpful in dealing with a few magistrates– when I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about !
Thank you Whalensky, I appreciate your reply, input and interpretations.
The obvious injustice of this case is increasingly stimulating and taking on the dimensions and itinerary of the tempo and timetable of indistinguishable fermenting resistance to venal petty officialdom and authority, concerning mining licences at Bendigos Red Ribbon Day in 1853, a year prior to the inevitable clash at Eureka Stockade. “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
Emphatically concluding your reply post with an exclamation mark though, was it really/unconditionally/fundamentally necessary?
AH- Mr Greenshields– You’ve really done “IT” AGAIN ! He exclaimed ! (with emphasises)!! This latest news in the quest for justice for Sue (SNF). Is emphatically distressing ! Makes one almost despair ! Fundamentally there have NO doubt been far worse miscarriages–(how about hanging) But this particular Grand Victory of Power Barstardary- now in 2022. Is unconditionally unexceptable–we are getting as MAD as HELL–IF one dwells on this whole Can of Worms– the perpetrators are bloody WORMS ! He exclaimed tearfully ( I kid you not ) !
Sorry Mr.Greenshields–have just been informed by someone “close” with a PHD. in Linguistics–that I can’t bloody spell– bastard– even if youse went to school in HOBOKEN ! ( exclaimed )
Know all barstard- they is. HOWEVER still find your contributions worth reading and deciphering–and like all the good people–concerned about the injustice done to SUE (and others of course). Don’t supoose “we” should give up. Shirley NOT
Not necessary to apologise Whalensky, I have also enjoyed speaking with a linguistic professional and to this day I think about her and the relationship that enveloped her. A beautiful lady, but whether or not the then partner was a charlatan, or ex DGSE, and linked to a vessel sunk in Auckland NZ I doubt I will ever know the truth about.
All the best. Robert.
Any credibility the high court held as at 12 August 2022 is now gone! The bench seems to have forgotten the text of their decision in Pell!
The system is stuffed. There is so much more evidence proving her innocence that has come to light since the first trial that under current law, that cannot be brought before a court.
Inconceivable. Farcical. Curious as to reasons for refusal to hear the appeal when there is so much doubt in this case. This really undermines confidence in our court processes.
Andrew – how can a system supposed to be about justice make such unjust decisions over the past 13 years??? If 1 judge dissents as did Estcourt J, surely that means that it needs to be looked at again and not simply accept that the best of 2 out of 3 wins out. Sue has had her life taken away and justice should say – maybe we need to look at this again.
Instead that disgraceful group of people in Tasmania will be happily celebrating that they have locked an innocent woman away and let the perpetrators remain walking around. The convict state wins at the cost of honesty an d integrity.
A sad sad day for truth and justice in Australia.
Just now viewed the TV. Thing–first episode–was Sue being interviewed without a lawyer present– couldn’t see one ? Recently read and viewed a long lecture explaining to LAW Students why potential victims of the Policeymen should just stick to Name Rank Serial number. The lecturer then tricked the actual law students into doing just that–blabbering–and then explaining in detail how trained experienced police could get an innocent person bamboozled–and convicted. Justice has absolutely nothing to do with their agenda !
Hear no EVIL–See no EVIL–Speak TO no EVIL– However even if you are deaf and mute- don’t forget to write a confession on your cell wall– that way the lovely POLICEYMAN will be in his way to Commissioner and the envy and admiration from his fellows. You will be on your way to the hangman. Oh well– the policeyman wanted to see you swing–15 years and 450 thousand for your troubles–One million per year would be appropriate. The NICE man (who has since been disgraced) claimed there was no policeyman naughtiness and $450,000 was appropriate for 15 years in prison–for 15 weeks–maybe OK. BUT not writing out a confession in Police TALK for a dumbarse jury would be a better outcome . If 20 builders labourers were to review The Full SUE (SNF) Case — without any doubt the outcome would be more sensible and less pompous–massively less expensive . One of Australia’s most intellectual PMs–Police Forces were a necessary EVIL. Another PM claimed Police were trained in lying at policeyman college . Isn’t that terrible ? All Magistrates- Judges and Juries should be sacked– replaced with a giant panel of builders labourers– would be less expensive–majority decisions and beat the crapp out of any silly dissenters. Not too many exclamations I hope !