Andrew L. Urban
Australia’s hodgepodge approach to compensation for wrongful imprisonment across various jurisdictions is highlighted by the Kathleen Folbigg compensation just announced (7/8/2025): $2 million for 20 years in jail.
Folbigg suffered the loss of her children compounded by the wrongful conviction for their murder and the loss of the best 20 years of her life. $2 million doesn’t fit with the Australian ethic of a ‘fair go’…
It seems the legal system and the various Governments are incapable of agreeing on uniform compensation guidelines so that Australians are not treated differently because of their postcodes.
Compensation for wrongful convictions over the past 40 years varies significantly by jurisdiction, with no uniform system except in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Most jurisdictions rely on discretionary ex gratia payments, which are arbitrary, non-transparent, and not legally mandated. The ACT is the only jurisdiction with a statutory right to compensation under Section 23 of the Human Rights Act 2004, requiring a conviction to be reversed or pardoned due to new evidence proving a miscarriage of justice.
Key examples of compensation include:
– David Eastman (ACT, 2019) : Awarded $7.02 million after 19 years in prison for a wrongful murder conviction.
– Henry Keogh (SA, 2018) : Paid $2.5 million after nearly 20 years for a wrongful murder conviction.
– Lindy and Michael Chamberlain (NT, 1992) : Received $1.3 million after Lindy served ~4 years for a wrongful murder conviction.
– Andrew Mallard (WA, 2005) : Awarded $3.25 million after nearly 12 years for a wrongful murder conviction.
– Gene Gibson (WA, 2017) : Received $1.3 million after nearly 5 years for a wrongful manslaughter conviction.
– John Button (WA, 2003) : Paid $460,000 after 5 years for a wrongful manslaughter conviction.
– Douglas Rendell (NSW, 1988) : Awarded $100,000 after 8 years for a wrongful murder conviction.
– Roseanne Beckett (NSW, 2015) : Received $4.09 million (including interest) after 10 years for wrongful convictions related to soliciting murder.
Common issues include:
– No automatic right to compensation in most jurisdictions, unlike the ACT.
– Ex gratia payments are inconsistent, politically influenced, and lack clear guidelines.
– Compensation amounts vary widely, often not reflecting the severity of harm or time served.
– Civil lawsuits for negligence or malicious prosecution are difficult due to high legal thresholds (e.g., proving “actual malice”).
– Nearly 100 documented wrongful convictions since 1922, with about 58% of exonerees seeking compensation and 63% of those receiving ex gratia payments.
The system can been criticised for arbitrariness, and should consider dedicated legislation or a Criminal Cases Review Commission to align with international standards.
NSW Premier Minns’ justification, given in a press conference,re the $2M compensation amount,and that state money was required for funding other things was pathetic,weak & unjust! The Minns govt appears not to have grasped the magnitude of the damage of wrongful conviction & 20 years imprisonment to to Ms Folbigg’s life.
The NSW public expects more compassionate leadership in the awarding of just compensation to the wrongfully imprisoned.
Andrew has here made a compelling case for establishment of financial compensation that is fair, uniform & politically neutral.
I write in support of Kathleen Folbigg, whose case highlights the enduring injustice in Australia’s criminal justice system—not only in wrongful conviction itself but in the refusal to provide adequate compensation when the system admits (however reluctantly) that it got it wrong.
Across Queensland and Australia, there exists a deeply troubling pattern. Individuals who were cleared, exonerated, or had long-standing doubts confirmed have sought compensation—and too often, received nothing.
Examples of systemic failure to compensate wrongful convictions:
Terry Irving (North Queensland): Wrongfully jailed for over 4½ years after his conviction was quashed in 1997, Mr Irving has received no apology and no meaningful compensation. His legal team is still urging the courts to award “significant” damages; the state’s position remains dismissive, offering only the paltry seven days he spent on remand as calculable compensation.
The Guardian
Jeanie Angel (Western Australia): Exonerated in 1991 for a wilful murder she did not commit—after serving two years—Jeanie Angel applied for an ex gratia payment. Her request was rejected by the Western Australian Attorney-General, who stated that the case did not meet the threshold for such a discretionary payment.
ResearchGate
John Button (Western Australia): Exonerated of a 1963 manslaughter conviction in the early 2000s, Button still reports that he “remains un-compensated” despite decades of wrongful conviction and public support for his plight.
library.scotch.wa.edu.au
wrongfulconvictionsreport.org
Farah Jama (New South Wales): Served 15 months in prison after being wrongfully convicted of rape due to DNA contamination. Despite being exonerated, he received an ex gratia payment of only $ 525,000—less than $ 350,000 per year imprisoned—and no reimbursement for legal costs.
The Free Library
These are not isolated anecdotes—they are symptoms of a system that claims to value justice but often resists the moral and financial responsibility to correct its own mistakes. Ex gratia payments remain at the discretion of politically appointed attorneys-general; there is no consistent statutory right, no transparency, and too often, no recompense
The recent compensation awarded to Kathleen Folbigg is a stark illustration of Australia’s deeply flawed and morally inconsistent approach to rectifying its own gravest errors. To suggest that $2 million can account for twenty years of a life stolen—years of unimaginable grief for her children, compounded by the horror of being falsely branded their killer—is not just inadequate, it is an insult to the very idea of justice. It falls profoundly short of the Australian ethic of a ‘fair go’.
Ms. Folbigg’s situation, however, is just one example of the cruel lottery that awaits the wrongfully convicted in Australia. Consider the case of Steven Fennell in Queensland, who was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence for the 2012 murder of 85-year-old Liselotte Watson on Macleay Island. After spending six years in prison, Fennell was acquitted by the High Court in 2019, which found the jury’s verdict to be unreasonable. While Folbigg received a discretionary ex gratia payment from the NSW government, Fennell has been forced to launch a separate, arduous civil lawsuit against the state of Queensland in pursuit of compensation.
This tale of two states exposes a system devoid of a coherent moral compass. Why should one person’s redress depend on a politician’s discretion, while another’s requires a costly and protracted legal battle? The glaring disparity between Folbigg’s payment, Fennell’s lawsuit, and the $7 million awarded to David Eastman under the ACT’s statutory scheme reveals a hierarchy of justice based on little more than a postcode. This “hodgepodge” reliance on inconsistent processes creates an indefensible system where the severity of the injustice is not matched by the fairness of the remedy.
The state robbed these individuals of their freedom, their reputations, and years of their lives. The psychological torment is immeasurable. The arbitrary nature of their paths to compensation underscores the urgent need for reform. Australians who have suffered the ultimate failure of our justice system should not have their right to fair redress determined by political whim or the jurisdiction in which their life was shattered. The establishment of uniform, legislated compensation guidelines and a national Criminal Cases Review Commission is essential to ensure that when the state fails so catastrophically, its apology is not as arbitrary and cruel as the initial injustice.