Sue Neill-Fraser injustice product of ‘our Tasmanian legal fraternity’

Andrew L. Urban.

Former Hobart prosecutor Tony Jacobs has reviewed the case of Sue Neill-Fraser and found many reasons for the conviction to be overturned, urging the Law Society to “help correct this injustice, the product of our Tasmanian legal fraternity.” On November 15, 2022, Independent member Michael Gaffney tabled the Jacobs documents in Tasmania’s Legislative Council – but the Attorney-General has refused all calls for an independent review. 

Jacobs was responding to Law Society President Simon Gates, who published a letter in the Hobart Mercury worried that sustained criticism about the case was undermining confidence in the legal system and called for critics to consider all of the evidence. Jacobs did just that – and sent his review to Law Society Executive Director Luke Rheinberger, pleading “Savagely scrutinise my words, but if you cannot fault them, please speak up to help correct this injustice, the product of our Tasmanian legal fraternity.” He is especially critical of the late David Gunson’s defence of Neill-Fraser, calling it “flagrant incompetence” and on its own enough to quash the conviction.

Jacobs (retired since 2020) reveals “serious matters never before raised,” which “show that her conviction in October 2010 should have been immediately overturned.” Those serious matters are critical of the legal fraternity and include:

# flagrant incompetence by defence counsel, the late David Gunson,

# the failure of the solicitors lodging her 2011 appeal to raise these issues,

# the failure of the solicitor lodging her 2012 High Court appeal

# and “the failure of the Tasmanian Appeal Court in 2012 to, of its own motion, raise these issues.”

Jacobs, pointing out he concentrated on the legal issues, begins by listing his research: “I have done what Simon requests. Read all 1550 pages of the trial transcript. Read the decision of the 2012 Appeal Court. Read the 18 page in total 7/9/2012 High Court hearing and decision. Read Mr Justice Brett’s decision. Read the total 544 paragraph November 2021 decision and other materials. Quite a few of these I’ve read more than once. Simon said that the jury found that based on the evidence as a whole, there was no rational hypothesis consistent with innocence. But that verdict was based on what they heard and were told.”

Jacobs goes on to provide extensive instances of errors, and includes examples of appeal judge Justice Wood making excuses for Gunson’s inaction on several occasions. Jacobs concludes,  “I suggest he (Gunson) was simply out of his depth”.

Simon Gates made the point that so many judges had been involved; “Fair enough,” comments Jacobs, “but I suggest that Mrs Neill-Fraser was met with a Catch 22 situation whichever way she turned after the trial.”

Jacobs doesn’t say this, but the fact that so many judges were involved yet still there remains a wrongful conviction makes Gates’ observation counter productive and helps to further undermine confidence in the legal system.

Jacobs says near the end of his letter that “obviously with my background I have an interest. “I would have been very happy to find that all was just and above board. It clearly was not and is not. I feel that I have a strong moral obligation to speak up.”

The Simon Gates letter was published on August 23, 2022; Tony Jacobs’ review was sent to the Law Society on September 27, 2022. At time of writing, November 15, 2022, there was no response from the Law Society.

But even before his September letter to the Law Society, Jacobs had written to Attorney-General Elise Archer in January, suggesting an ‘Enquiry Panel’ comprising three retired mainland judges. Archer claimed impotence as the matter was then still before the courts. Jacobs wrote to her again in September with a copy of his submission. In October, Archer replied, predictably enough, claiming that highest courts had considered the case in great detail.

That response is stone-walling; no Attorney-General across her portfolio could fail to know enough of this controversial case to understand that, as Gaffney’s speech on November 15 pointed out, “the courts are only ever as good as the evidence put before them and the appeal courts are only ever as good as the points of appeal put to them, and vulnerable witnesses are only as good as the protection an d support provided to them. When the system fails, or more to the point, when lawyers fail, miscarriages of justice can occur and it is up to the First Law Officer of the Land to recognise these failures and address them.”

Gaffney also turned back on Archer her pleading that the courts decisions be respected or risk undermining the rule of law and the judiciary. “To be deliberately blind to [those failures] is what will undermine confidence in the legal system.”

Gaffney also revealed that “Robert Richter KC and David Edwardson (Jeff Thompson’s lawyer in the prison surveillance device matter), wrote to the Attorney-General some four weeks ago a detailed letter also calling for a Commission of Inquiry. They are yet to receive a response.

“Mr President,” added Gaffney in conclusion, “I call upon the Attorney-General to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Sue Neill-Fraser conviction and wider systemic entrenched issues in our justice system  which may have led to other miscarriages of justice in Tasmania too.”

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

23 Responses to Sue Neill-Fraser injustice product of ‘our Tasmanian legal fraternity’

  1. Nigel Elliot says:

    Elise Archer isnt fit for her position and clearly would rather collude with the police and taspol and judiciary than ensure that innocent people have their wrongful conviction overturned ensuring true justice is seen to be done. Tony Jacobs thoroughly went through allvSues trials papers and evidence and what he found was shocking facts which prove Sues innocence. Either this wretched Elise Archer allows an inquiry or should resign rather than be dacked in disgrace for defeating the true ends of true justice and all Australians should put in a motion of no confidence in her position as attorney general or hope their family member who goes to court in the future whoose innocent but convicted wrongly doesnt befall the same fate as Sue did. Hobart Tasmanian justice the courts and police are not fit to serve the Australian people of Hobart as the case of Sue Neill Fraser whom i know very well is innocent and i suspect there are a great many other innocents behind bars who shouldnt be but not wanting to be proved wrong about court cases collude together to
    hide behind legal priviledge in shame and to protect themselves against big lawsuits for malicious and peverse prosecution which shows thoose who seriously erred in their true disgusting colours. This Hobart judicial and police are an absolute disgrace to the legal proffession they pupport to serve and need to get their house in order. Due to this and other legal events Hobart justice is a total laughing stock amongst other Australian legal entities and its virtually and practically a kangeroo court. It isnt funny though when these incompetent shower can jail Sue for 13 years of her life knowing she is innocent during which time due to stress and anxiety her parents suffered and succumbed but this bunch of legal jokers care not one jot and how they can sleep at night with a clear conscience beggars beleif kniwing they have made a wrong judgement which tells you the sort of people they truly are no scrupples. I have news for these incompetent legal shower watch this space and the people of Hobart should demand new blood in all judiciary police and judges if they want people to respect police and judiciary this has to be done otherwise these wrongful convictions will continue. People of Hobart you now know what you must do and demand its done quickly to restore faith in the legal system.

  2. Keith says:

    Where is the state opposition here? I cannot believe any political party would not be opportunistic and slam a government on a matter such as this, as cynical as that might sound.
    Things must be crook in Tassie if Labor can’t make a political point over this, shows how deep the boys club is.

    • Cherie Sliney says:

      I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve been saying the same thing! Why are Labor so quiet – this is not how they usually behave. They usually look for every opportunity to slam Libs. This certainly indicates collusion and corruption on so many levels. Elise Archer needs to do her job. Her behaviour thus far is disgraceful.

  3. Geraldine Allan says:

    KRISTIE JOHNSON MHA
    Readers can see that this debate transpired over an hour. Brevity dictates all the content of Ms Johnson’s motion cannot be included here, yet full text can be downloaded from the relevant HANSARD of the day, Ps 36-52. https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ParliamentSearch/isysquery/f88b145f-4dde-41ae-ac32-09b707521e18/Johnston/entity/

    See the final outcome at end of this text “As there is not at least one member supporting the Teller, Ms Johnston, for the Ayes, in accordance with standing order 158, I declare that the Noes have it. Motion negatived.”
    That’s our House of Assembly, folks!

    On Wednesday 19 October 2022, KRISTIE JOHNSON MHA, moved the following motion: “That the House –
    (1) Agrees that –
    1. (a) a fair criminal trial must be conducted in accordance with the rule of law and our international human rights obligations.
    2. (b) the integrity of the trial process is an essential pre-condition for any finding of guilt against an accused; and
    3. (c) both Tasmania Police and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions has a critical role in ensuring integrity and confidence in the criminal justice system before, during and after trial.
    (2) Acknowledges that –
    (a) sadly, wrongful convictions will occur from time to time in all criminal justice systems; and
    (b) where wrongful convictions have occurred in many Australian jurisdictions a common response from public authorities has been denial, delay and obfuscation.
    (3) Further agrees –
    1. (a) as a matter of legal principle that the Crown has a duty of disclosure to the court with regard to false or misleading evidence, or incorrect submissions that extends to an obligation to make inquiries to ascertain if such disclosable material exists, and that duty extends beyond the trial into both the appeal and post-appeal periods; and
    2. (b) that the parliament has the ultimate responsibility to make laws and to ensure that the law is effectively and fairly applied to all citizens.

    Ms Johnson commenced,
    “I am sure it comes as no surprise to members of this House that I care passionately about the pursuit of justice. There has been a common thread in all my previous roles, whether it be local government or the community legal sector.
    In my current role, I take seriously my responsibility to do all that I can to ensure just outcomes for all Tasmanians, and without wanting to put words into the mouths of others here, I would like to believe that this is a value held in common with all members of this House.
    The pursuit of justice is a responsibility that is shared by many: police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, scientific advisers, academic lawyers, and ultimately, the parliament; and it is important that we get it right to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. Quite rightly, the community expects our criminal justice system to be fair and just. When you ask members of the public what that means, they will often refer to the notion of a fair trial, where all the evidence is presented in a forum where the pursuit of truth and justice is the focus rather than necessarily the finding of guilt, so they talk about the standard of proof of guilt as being one of beyond reasonable doubt only once all the evidence has been fairly presented. …”

    When referring to disclosure, Ms Johnson said, “The prosecution owes a duty to disclose to the defence in a timely manner with regard to
    • Evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution, including evidence of witnesses and proposed exhibits
    • Evidence of witnesses who the prosecution does not propose to call
    • Material that tends to reflect materially on the credibility of prosecution witnesses
    • Material that tends to weaken the prosecution case or assist the defence case; and
    • Material that is relevant to an issue in the case.

    Further, it is well accepted that this duty of disclosure extends beyond the trial period into both the appeal and post-appeal periods. …”

    In discussing a “fair trial”, Ms Johnson said,
    “Duty of disclosure is just one, but one of the very important components of a fair trial. The reason I raise this particularly in this motion is because it goes to the heart of the culture of a prosecutorial service and articulates the reasonable expectation of the community in the way in which in which the Crown or the state ought to conduct themselves fairly in the pursuit of justice.
    As the conduct of a fair trial is a condition precedent to the determination of guilt by a jury, it stands to reason that if one or more of the principles of a fair trial are found to be absent or lacking on appeal, then the trial is said to be unfair, and the conviction must be set aside. The test on appeal is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that nondisclosure, effective and inadmissible evidence, incorrect submissions, false or misleading evidence, or other material effort in trial would have influenced the jury in arriving at a verdict. If there is such likelihood, the verdict must be set aside, and it gives rise to reasonable doubt. …”

    Referring to recent attempts to prosecute lawyer Jeff Thompson, Ms Johnson continued, “While Tasmania, to date, has not had a prominent wrongful conviction case of the likes of Mallard, most recently we saw confidence in our criminal justice system undermined and questioned in relation to the attempted prosecution of Mr Jeffrey Thompson. Without wanting to go into great detail, for the purposes of considering fairness and the requirement for integrity in criminal proceedings, suffice to mention a few facts of the matter here.
    Tasmania Police obtained a surveillance device warrant, which led to an optical and listening device recording constantly in a professional meeting room at Risdon Prison from 15 June 2017 to 17 August 2017- despite there apparently being only one conversation of interest between Mr Jeffrey Thompson and Mr Stephen Gleeson on 16 June 2017. As a result of the surveillance, charges were brought against Mr Jeffrey Thompson on 16 August 2017.
    In hearing the matter of criminal charges against Mr Thompson, Justice Brett found the surveillance device warrant was invalid on its face and suffered from a serious defect. In determining the admissibility of the surveillance evidence, Justice Brett described the issue of the invalid warrant as a result of carelessness on the part of Tasmania Police and issuing magistrate. Justice Brett further stated that:
    The evidence which was presented fell far short of satisfying me that police had any significant insight into these problems and their importance, nor that anything has been done since to address similar situations … However, the importance of ensuring the protection of privacy and respect of unrelated and privileged conversations in the course of covert surveillance satisfies me that the balance of this case falls in favour of exclusion.
    Importantly, Justice Brett says: “Such protection is fundamental to the integrity of and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.”

    Mr Thompson faced these criminal charges against him for almost five years before the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the proceedings just recently. He lost his livelihood, as he could not practise as a lawyer. The personal toll on him and his family was significant and will be lasting. …”

    In finalising, Ms Johnson acknowledged, “… It can be uncomfortable and even embarrassing for all involved when faced with the consequences of a wrongful conviction. At the end of the day, the guiding principle must be the pursuit of justice. It is incumbent on all who are involved with the criminal justice system – from the police officer on the street, through to the officers of the court, and us as legislators – to do all we can to rectify manifest miscarriages of injustice.
    Some may say that my motion today is quite familiar. It is a statement of legal principle and of fact. I hope that it is not a controversial statement of principle and fact, and that everyone can agree with it. I think the importance of these motions is that there are occasions where it is important for us as a parliament to recommit or reaffirm those principles for community to help them have confidence in the carriage of justice. I hope today is one of those occasions.
    Mr Speaker, I commend the motion to the House. “

    Again, in the interests of brevity, I am unable to include the full HANSARD of Attorney-General’s reply here, yet I encourage readers to read it.
    Here’s a taste: –
    “… [12.18 p.m.]
    Ms ARCHER (Clark – Attorney-General) – Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion
    on behalf of the Government, and as Attorney-General and first law officer, to which this directly relates.
    I will state from the outset that the Government will not be supporting this motion. The Government plainly accepts that criminal trials in Tasmania must be conducted fairly and in accordance with the rule of law and with the utmost integrity.
    Tasmania Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions play a vital role in the administration of justice in Tasmania, and the criminal justice system in particular, especially in their work prosecuting summary and indictable offences respectively. I, and the Government, have absolute confidence in Tasmania Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Tasmanian community can be confident in all agencies of the Crown that are involved in the administration of the criminal justice system and be justifiably proud of the work and the independence of those institutions.
    The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office. Indeed, the DDP itself is an independent statutory officer and acts independently of the Government. The DPP prosecutes crimes in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and conducts appeals, exercising his functions independent of and without influence or interference from the government of the day. It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on the conduct of any particular matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions or, indeed, the determination of those matters by the courts.
    There is an appropriate and effective pathway available in Tasmania for a person seeking to appeal a conviction. That includes by way of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and, ultimately, to the High Court of Australia. This process provides judicial oversight of criminal convictions by the most eminent judges in this state and, indeed, the country.

    The other propositions contained in the member’s motion are largely uncontroversial. However, there is no need for parliament to reaffirm such well-seated principles of justice, which are so well understood by those conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Crown in this state.
    Mr Deputy Speaker, to support the member’s motion invites the suggestion that parliament does not have confidence that Crown prosecutors in Tasmania understand their obligations. As I have already stated, the Government has full confidence that prosecutors acting on behalf of the Crown have a full and comprehensive knowledge of their duties and uphold those duties to the fullest and utmost extent, with integrity and independence.

    Therefore, the Government does not support the member’s motion.

    [12.27 p.m.]
    Ms HADDAD (Clark) – spoke to the motion

    [12.36 p.m.]
    Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) – spoke to the motion and presented two amendments.
    law is effectively and fairly applied to all citizens.”

    [12.47 p.m.]
    Mr O’BYRNE (Franklin) – spoke to the standing motion and the amendments

    Then at [12.52 p.m.]
    “… Ms JOHNSON (Clark) – Mr Deputy Speaker, it was never my intention through the motion, and, clearly, I do not believe it is reflected in the wording of the motion, to have a reflection on the actions of the DPP or any other public authority. It was more to encourage broader discussion about the carriage of justice across a number of jurisdictions within Australia and, as the member for Clark articulated, other international jurisdictions.

    I will concede that if that causes an issue for members of this Chamber, I am happy to have that removed because I am firmly of the view that we need the intent to be stated on the record that a fair criminal trial must be in accordance with the rule of law and our UN Convention on Human Rights obligations and, most importantly, that integrity of a trial process is an essential precondition for any finding of guilt against the accused and what follows from that, those principles around maintaining the integrity of a trial. …”

    [12.58 p.m.]
    Ms ARCHER (Clark – Attorney-General) – Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain why the Government will be opposing both amendments. Although those statements are correct in nature, as I said in my contribution, there is no need to restate the rule of law. Therefore, there is no need for this motion in the first place. …”
    Time expired.
    Amendments negatived.

    Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER – The question is that the motion be agreed to. The House proceeding to divide –

    Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER – As there is not at least one member supporting the Teller, Ms Johnston, for the Ayes, in accordance with standing order 158, I declare that the Noes have it.
    Motion negatived.
    Sitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. “

    • Geraldine Allan says:

      As an afterthought, how’s this?
      Page 9 DPP Annual Report 2021-22
      Appeals

      The third appeal was that of Neill-Fraser v Tasmania which was the first appeal under the amendments to the Criminal Code allowing for a second appeal. The appeal was rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal and special leave to appeal was subsequently refused by the High Court. During the course of the proceedings, numerous issues were raised by the appellant with all but one eventually being abandoned after receiving the Crown submissions.
      This matter is a good example of how statistics do not reflect the true amount of work done by the Office. Both Tasmania Police and my Office had to expend considerable resources responding to the many issues raised by the appellant, all of which were either subsequently abandoned by the appellant or found by the appellate courts to have no substance. …

      Full report available @ https://www.dpp.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/683121/AR_DPP_2021-22.pdf

      • andrew says:

        Neither do statistics reflect the the amount of work that goes into protecting a wrongful conviction. Bummer, eh?

        • Geraldine Allan says:

          If only.
          If only elected representatives asked questions re $total expenditure on protecting the SNF wrongful conviction alone.
          They could ask, yet they don’t.
          “Budget Estimates is a key process for government accountability and transparency. The Budget Estimates inquiry involves detailed questioning on the decisions, actions and advice of ministers and public servants.”

  4. Don Wakeling says:

    Nothing new in the disgrace that passes for the “justice” system on Tasmania;
    The Law Society elects a president who publicly called for public criticism to be gagged revealing his prosecution case bias ( no doubt the product of his former legal positions); an Executive Officer who doesn’t respond to reasoned criticism of that biased call by it’s President;
    An Attorney General who who continues to fails to face the glaringly obvious need for a full Public Inquiry into all facets of the Sue Neill-Fraser case;
    A Minister for Police who does nothing but mutely allows the police to investigate themselves;
    A Chief Justice, who as the Judge of SNF’s trial, repeatedly and deliberately mislead the Jury, is still at large, presiding over criminal jury trials.

    • andrew says:

      And for completeness, we can add ‘A DPP who fails to jointly with the defence appear before the court of appeal and seek the overturning of the conviction in recognition of the many errors that have been identified since trial.’ It’s the honourable and just thing to do.

  5. Ian Ronald Gardner says:

    It seems to me that the Tasmanian Parliament in general and the Attorney General in particular must call for a full Commission of Enquiry, failing which the Federal Government, prompted by Andrew Wilkie must act. The question I have, is the Attorney General capable of doing her job. It seems not.
    This has been a gross miscarriage of Justice and a classic cover-up from the start. Why would the Attorney General want to avoid an Enquiry? Constant denial of such an Enquiry must bring the Attorney’s integrity into question.

  6. John Biggs says:

    This is all very encouraging. The pressure on AG Archer to call for an Inquiry is now huge; the case given Jacobs and taken up by Gaffney, Webb, Wilkie and hopefully others the is sure something even she can’t ignore. Let’s all add to it by writing to the Attorney General again and again.

  7. Brian Johnston says:

    I am not so sure Sue’s lawyer Gunson was incompetent rather he for whatever reason bought into Sue’s guilt and provided a weak defence allowing Sue to go to gaol.

    Where has Jacobs been all these years.

    Devine & Gleeson walk the streets. Staggering.

    I too have written to Elise Archer and received rather lame replies.

    Wilkie has been ineffective. (Potentially defamatory comment removed by moderator.)

  8. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    Thanks Andrew. No misunderstandings but that says it all. Out of 17 Federal Tasmanian members Andrew Wilkie is the only one who I am aware off having continually spoken out and demonstrated his support on behalf of Sue Neil-Fraser’s wrongful conviction. My point was; what has the other 16 been doing of similar substantial significance since being elected. Please inform me and other WCR contributors if you are aware?

    • andrew says:

      Michael Gaffney in the Legislative Council has tabled two sets of documents and made attendant speeches in the chamber about the case. Not aware of any other members of any parliament having spoken out about this matter.

  9. Owen allen says:

    Great work by all.

  10. Ben Dean says:

    ‘Simon Gates made the point that so many judges had been involved’ implying the consensus of authority dictates what is at issue cannot be wrong. Once again, this argument is recognizably fallacious because it fails to address the errors articulated, instead believing the command of authority is infallible, simply because it come from authority. Like the Catholic church commanding Galileo a heretic. Dieu et mon droit.
    Similarly, this idea of ‘considering all the evidence’ is repeatedly rolled out, like the ‘strands in a cable’ in the belief – that the conjunction of many probabilities, ‘none of which alone can infer guilt’, increases the likelihood of guilt. Formally, the conjunction of many probabilities tends towards zero likelihood. Highlighted by ‘The Linda Problem’ proposed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. A problem that 80% of all people, across all professions, consistently get wrong. Erroneously believing the conjunction or ‘stands in a cable’ is more intuitively representative of a hypothesis, when in fact, the hypothesis becomes (mathematically) less and less likely. To say nothing of ignoring/removing evidence that falsifies the hypothesis.

  11. Jerry Fitzsimmons says:

    As always Andrew you are guilty of keeping us plebs informed and I thank you for it. We now appear to have two wonderful Independents in Tasmania keeping on top of things legal, Michael Gaffney and Meg Webb, oh and I nearly forgot Andrew Wilkie, that’s three.
    We should all be indebted to these three great representatives in the Parliament whom the major parties should be grateful to for keeping the houses of the people honest.
    While I am grateful for what these three people are doing in spite of party politicking efforts to sideline them, they demonstrate integrity and trustworthiness to those who have ticked their box of 1st choice candidate.
    If the major parties had a brain in their head they’d be observing the sick and pathetic image they are portraying by their lack of engagement and clarity to those of us who, reluctantly, as opposed to donkey voting, put them there to represent us.
    As for Mr Jacobs I say, where was he before he retired in 2020! Did he know that Sue Neil-Fraser was convicted at a trial in 2010 and who since then has had a number of appeals, all well before 2020.
    Sorry Andrew, cannot accept that safety in retirement from such a responsible position enables a ‘voice’ to now come forth whoever it be or to whom.
    Sue spent many years incarcerated as a result of ‘the justice system’ denying her a fair trial.
    This woman now needs the voices of these three independent members to call for a proper Enquiry in support of the rigorous work covered by a dedicated support group on her behalf. I look forward to true justice for Sue Neil-Fraser.

    • andrew says:

      Just so there are no misunderstandings…Andrew Wilkie is indeed an Indpendent, but not in Tasmania. He is a Federal MP.

      • Owen allen says:

        That should work Andrew. Canberra has an obligation to protect Australians within Australia. What does it take for Justice in Australia, whether South Australia, Tasmania or any other state or territory. Where does the buck stop?
        ( does the buck stop at the Prime Minister?) Is that the terminology, used by a US President or just a movie?
        We should not have to resort to the 2nd Amendment of the US, but I am confident the US would have volunteers scrambling to come to a rumble in Australia.

    • Garry Stannus says:

      There’s another person you might add to your list, Jerry: Kristie Johnston, the (Independent) Member for Clark. Check her out, Jerry … for starters, have a quick look at:

      https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=473397734839679&set=a.154265253419597

      [Definitely not to be confused with Kristy Johnson, an unsuccessful Liberal Party candidate on more than one occasion.]

      Andrew Urban is correct in pointing out that Andrew Wilkie is a Member of the Federal Parliament. I would add that Wilkie is the Member for the Tasmanian electorate of Denison and has – over a number of years – spoken out against Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction, calling it unsafe and calling for the Tasmanian Government to intervene and initiate an Inquiry. I’ve heard Wilkie speak against Sue’s conviction and imprisonment at rallies, have a listen to this one:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cCCpsx0xVA

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.