April 28, 2025: The Human Rights Law Centre has filed legal proceedings on behalf of Tasmanian grandmother, Susan Neill-Fraser, to challenge a restrictive parole condition placed on her by the Tasmanian Parole Board seeking to limit her ability to speak to the media.
The case, filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, argues that preventing Susan from speaking to the media is improper, unlawful and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
Parole is intended to support people to reintegrate into the community after time spent in prison. The Human Rights Law Centre is concerned by the largely unchecked powers of parole boards throughout the country which impose restrictive parole conditions that prevent people’s full participation in the community. Restrictive parole conditions have a disproportionate impact on already marginalised groups who are overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre said:
“Everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of political communication, including and especially people who have been incarcerated.
“The parole system should support people’s re-entry into the community after being in prison. Parole conditions which are repressive and restrict people’s fundamental human rights do the opposite. They set people up to fail and create hurdles that push people back into prison.
“The right to political communication is fundamental to our democracy and safeguarded by Australia’s constitution, while our right to free speech is protected by international human rights law. These rights should not be restricted unless there is a legitimate reason.”
Background
Susan Neill-Fraser served 13 years in prison and has been on parole since 2022. In December 2024, the Tasmanian Parole Board placed a condition on Susan parole which prohibited her from communicating “directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim [her] alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction”.
The social order dictated by the Parole Board, and the Criminal Courts is deeply intrenched in a methodology of coercion and control. And now reflects an institution that is the polar opposite to the principles underpinning a democracy for citizens to be upheld as politically equal.
Good luck to Human Rights Law Centre if reason is their only weapon.
At last a step forward (hopefully).
I am a Sue supporter and have believed she is innocent since the day at her trial when a witness, looking at Sue, said ‘The lady in the box is not the lady I saw arguing with Mr Chappell”. At an adjournment, she pointed to Mr Chappell’s sister as the woman she had seen. Family mentioned this to Sue’s counsel and the detective inspector in charge of the case but no chance was given to correct this misidentification. The judge, likewise, let it go through to the keeper. It was a trial of ‘suggestions’, not evidence, and mockery.