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”.
I wish the Human Rights Law Centre [HRLC] ‘Good Luck’ and ‘Fair Sailing’. Yet a particular sentence in the article above causes me concern:
“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.”
Beyond the excerpts quoted in the article above, I have not seen the text of the Parole Board’s ‘no-speaking-to-media’ condition, placed on Sue Neill-Fraser in December of last year (2024). Neither have I seen the text of the HRLC’s application to the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that speaking to the media is not in itself necessarily an act of ‘political communication’ … it could be seen as that, I suppose, if in doing so Sue were to ‘bag out’ the government, various Ministers and various political parties.
The article above also states,
‘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. ‘
and also that
‘…our right to free speech is protected by international human rights law. These rights should not be restricted unless there is a legitimate reason. ‘
Let’s get a couple of matters straight:
1 The Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] notes
[https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression] that
It should be pointed out that Tasmania -despite various calls last year [2024] to enact a Human Rights Act- has not yet done so. As I understand it, Tasmania has no legislation which affirms the right to freedom of expression.
Even so, the Commonwealth Attorney-General has stated [https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression] that
‘
In closing, I point out that the Background section of the article above:
…gives cause for concern.
Will the use of that word ‘indirectly’ inhibit others from using the media to promote Sue’s case … for fear that Sue will be held ‘indirectly’ responsible for opinions expressed on her behalf?
Excellent point, that last one, Garry. But the thrust of the Parole Board’s new direction to the parolee (Sue Neill-Fraser) contains a fundamental problem in a democracy. Just as an appeal against a conviction challenges the court without being deemed contrary to the rule of law, a convicted person must have the right to challenge the conviction…how else to mount an appeal? (This is a short version of a longer treatise…)
Free speech isn’t just restricted to people on parole. I have been acquitted and yet I am still hamstrung by the Queensland CCC (then CMC) and need written permission to speak about the hearing. While being allowed transcripts ( a fight in itself) these can not be published and even a conversation about specifics with anyone that is not my lawyer is punishable with a prison sentence. Free speech is neither free, nor related to justice. I have also been considering publishing a book of my journey etc however some of the details may have to remain undisclosed due to potential legal action. While I am “free” to lodge an official complaint with explicit details and references I have ben cautioned about releasing any complaint to the public because it too may have legal issues. I am a supporter of Sue and believe she is innocent. How can justice flourish if is it strangled or gagged? How do you improve policing , justice or anything if it’s not allowed to be talked about and be debated?
Thanks Steven, it’s depressing but important to be known publicly that our criminal justice system is so badly out of whack with the basic principles of justice. Write the book.
Let the truth be known in Sue’s case.
Derek Bromley in South Australia served over 40 years in prison for murder. On his appeal 3 of the country’s leading pathologists stated that the cause of death had to be ‘undetermined’ because of the incompetent autopsy conducted by Dr Colin Manock. If the cause of death has not been established the conviction cannot stand. The appeal court did not see it that way. Bromley has been released on parole, but is restricted from talking to the media. In the UK people in prison are allowed to nominate a journalist who can speak to them whilst in prison to allow them to put their side of the case. I think the public should be allowed to hear from a person claiming to be wrongly convicted.
Absolutely! Perhaps it’s a matter for one of the relevant international rights bodies…?
What a great idea, a prisoner has a voice to advocate his case in the media!
In SA instead they impose media blackouts. How else do we explain why no news has been published since 2019 in the case of former magistrate Peter Liddy. He was due for parole in 2019!
He could do with a gutsy investigative journalist to research his sad story.
Parole Boards have shown themselves consistently to be what they are, namely bureaucratic time servers doing the bidding of their political masters. The law is a racket, put on for racketeers and there’s an end on’t.
Hi Andrew
Many thanks for keeping me informed of the many errors occurring in our justice system.
Rodger Warren
Berwick
Victoria
It seemed to me that , obstruction of free speech is an admission by the Justice system
That they know the person in question is innocent. And by hook or by crook , they don’t want to expose their failure and irreparable damage they’ve done to an innocent person. She has basically spent 15 years proclaiming her innocence. 15 years of proclamation after release surely is a good sign that another innocent has been wronged. Just ask Me. Pv
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.