The following media release was issued today, August 13, 2025 by the Human Rights Law Centre after the Tasmanian parole board’s further and more restrictive conditions were applied in April this year.
Legal challenge against Tasmanian parole board’s new gag order against Susan Neill-Fraser
The Human Rights Law Centre has brought further legal proceedings on behalf of Tasmanian grandmother, Susan Neill-Fraser, to challenge a new restrictive parole condition which seeks to prevent her from speaking to any third parties, including the media, to claim her alleged innocence or wrongful conviction. This new parole condition replaces and expands an old parole condition which prevented her from speaking to the media.
The case, which is being heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, was adjourned today until 10 September. It argues that the new condition is unreasonable, improper and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre said:
“Freedom of speech and political communication are core democratic rights that belong to everyone – including and especially people who have been in prison, whose voices are essential to a just and democratic society.
“Parole should be a pathway to reintegration, not a way of continuing to impose punishment. When parole conditions silence people or limit their freedom of expression, they violate basic human rights and increase the risk of re-incarceration.
“Instead of stopping people from speaking out after being in prison, parole should be focused on ensuring people are supported as they re-enter the community.”
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’s parole which prohibited her from communicating “directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim [her] alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction”.
In May 2025, this condition was replaced with a condition which prohibits her from communicating “directly or indirectly – including through third parties, written statements, electronic communications, social media platforms, television, radio, podcasts, streaming services, online video-sharing platforms, or any other public or broadcast media – to assert claims regarding your alleged innocence, wrongful conviction, or dispute the legitimacy of your conviction or sentencing”.
COMMENT
by Andrew L. Urban
Tasmania’s legal club has scraped the bottom of the justice barrel with the parole board’s inexcusable gag order to prevent Sue Neill-Fraser claiming her innocence. This is certainly improper and even despicable. She is barred from even mentioning that Justice Estcourt’s dissnting opinion was that her appeal be allowed and her conviction quashed (see below). The parole board can’t muzzle Estcourt J, though …
Let’s see what the Tasmanian Supreme Court will make of the legal challenge.
The current bench comprises:
The Hon Chief Justice, Cristopher Shanahan, The Hon Justice Wood, The Hon Stephen Estcourt, The Hon Robert Pearce, The Hon Michael Brett, The Hon Tamara Jago, The Hon Kate Cuthbertson, The Hon Michael Daly.
Their Honours Wood, Estcourt, Pearce and Brett have all come into contact with the Sue Neill-Fraser case previously.
In particular, Wood J issued the leading judgement dismissing Sue Neill-Fraser’s appeal. Her judgement was analysed by Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles, an extract of which we published on January 13, 2022. That extract concludes with a summary of the key errors identified:
- Wood J failed to recognise that luminol test was inadmissible forensic evidence
- That this was incompetent, false and misleading evidence was not disclosed at the appeal by the prosecution
- Failure to recognise that some DNA evidence was incomplete & misleading
- Excusing that the Director ‘strayed into conjecture’ about secondary transfer of DNA
- Wood J’s misplaced emphasis on due diligence by the defence – actually a requisite by prosecution
- Wood J excusing impermissible prosecutorial speculation as ‘liberties’ & ‘hyperbole’ & ‘exaggeration and theatre’
It was Estcourt J who dissented in the 2:1 decision, saying:
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 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.
Queensland Police have a proven history of murdering nuisance meddling women.
The Tasmania Police just scare the shit out of them….
As the dominate dingoe juror proclaimed
” Australia has the best justice system in the world, everyone has the chance to prove their innocents ”
Pardon please,while I puke !
Andrew .Thank you for your tolerance of what that other famous moderater, Colonel Graham Chapman of the Monty Python social commentary team would bark in his very British military tone of voice
“Stop ! this is all getting too silly,”
However, we must never forget that Lindy Chamberlain, for example, was released,compensated a pittance (the persecution swine not punished) because of overwhelming ridicule from “joe blow citizen” this ridicule couldn’t be ignored…excepted by Appeals Court Judges and the case dominate juror who stated ” Australia has the best justice system in the world because everyone has the opportunity to prove their innocents “. ( does that statement bring on the puke ?)
Starting with Socrates- free speach and maintaining a healthy society – a death sentence for him in the Athens State Prison . His student Plato maintained that one should work to discover the right way to live –
Does the Tasmanian system of the doings over even come close to these 2000 year ago ideals ? The Sue Neill-Fraser debacle seems to prove not…PS Queensland Police have a history of murdering nuisance meddling women.
Andrew .Thank you for your tolerance of what that other moderater Colonel Graham Chapman ( Monty Python) would bark in his very British military tone of voice
“Stop – this is all getting a bit silly,”
However, we must never forget that Lindy Chamberlain, for example, was released and found totally not guilty because of the overwhelming ridicule from informed citizens – this ridicule couldn’t be ignored…
Starting with Socrates- free speach and maintaining a healthy society – a death sentence for him in the Athens State Prison . His student Plato maintained that one should work to discover the right way to live –
Does the Tasmanian system of the doings over even come close to these 2000 year ago ideals ? The Sue Neill-Fraser debacle seems to prove not…
Indeed!
As previously advised, to avoid circular repetition, no further comments will be published regarding the Meaghan Vass/DNA elements of the Sue Neill-Fraser case – the Moderator.
Michael, The DNA could have been from saliva (either deposited directly via a spit or deposited indirectly via a sticky saliva on the sole of a shoe). Moisture on the deck could have helped the secondary transfer.
It’s useful to read what was written in the Appeal Court Decision instead of talking about “mystical vaporous DNA dumping creatures”. The Appeal Court relied on expert DNA scientist opinion.
“could have been” “could have helped” … there’s been enough speculation during the trial thanks. Why are you so keen to dismiss the DNA … and if you call it a “red herring” we will know.
Who is dismissing the DNA?
Could have been direct or secondary transfer. Could have been from blood or saliva.
The only certain thing is that it was Meaghan’s DNA.
Did you read the Appeal Court decision? It was written in that decision about Maxwell Jones’ opinion about how moisture on the deck could have facilitated the secondary transfer of DNA.
I have previously stated that we would not regurgitate matters to do with Meaghan Vass or her DNA, after relentless att empts to resuscitate this matter. The matters are again closed for comment.
I have previously stated that we would not regurgitate matters to do with Meaghan Vass or her DNA, after relentless att empts to resuscitate this matter. The matters are again closed for comment.
Michael, one thing to keep in mind is what was actually conceded in the courtroom. At Sue’s 2021 appeal, her own legal team explicitly accepted there was no evidence of vomit on the deck where the DNA was found. That concession matters, because it rules out the “vomit transfer” theory — it simply wasn’t part of the appeal arguments.
The whole case at that stage turned instead on the DNA science itself, particularly Maxwell Jones’s expert evidence about how unlikely secondary transfer would be. The majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal (Wood and Pearce JJ) still found that didn’t undermine the conviction, though Estcourt J disagreed.
So while broader concerns about contamination or judicial handling can certainly be debated, the “vomit” explanation wasn’t supported by evidence — even Sue’s lawyers abandoned it in court. If we want to have a productive discussion, it seems important to stick to the facts that were actually put before the judges.
Are we to believe – there was no evidence of vomit on the deck where the DNA was found ?
So DNA was found ? How was the DNA found then – in what form – molecules (atoms) floating in the miasma ?
The vomit transfer theory is also ruled out ! SO the police prosecutor and judge screenplay for the jury is a fraud – with references to the almost impossible vomit transfer on the police boot ?
Now I’m confused – did the defence team and the judge prosecutor playwrite for the jury debate – is Megan Vass actually a mystical vapourous DNA dumping creature ? Not a real person at all . A non vomiting DNA depositing creature drifting in from Roswell and long gone back into the miasma…or does Nicholas speak with a policemans silly forked tongue ?
You say “At Sue’s 2021 appeal, her own legal team explicitly accepted there was no evidence of vomit on the deck where the DNA was found.” Please cite a reference to the transcript where we can confirm this; I don’t think it is correct.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
WOOD, J
ESTCOURT, J
PEARCE, AJ
SUSAN BLYTH NEILL-FRASER
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
2021 03 02 (2nd Appeal – Second Day).
MR RICHTER QC:
And we don’t want to waste the court’s time, which will leave us in the situation of having Mr Holloway being cross-examined in relation to his statements about the DNA evidence, and I don’t believe that there will be any need – I mean, I’ve already announced an agreement in relation to the fingerprint evidence so far as any evidence of there being no vomit is concerned, we have – we concede that there is no evidence of vomit as such being found. But there were other fluids obviously that produced a as near a perfect a DNA match as one can have in these cases.
[CCA Transcript: page 90, lines 19-27]
Thanks Garry, I’d forgotten that…it is, after all, forgettable … and regrettable.
As previously advised, to avoid circular repetition, no further comments will be published regarding the Meaghan Vass/DNA elements of the Sue Neill-Fraser case – the Moderator.
Andrew,
I think you’re overlooking an important distinction. The Parole Board’s powers extend only to the parolee, not to journalists or the public. That’s why you and others can still debate the case freely.
But when Sue herself makes public statements, it carries a very different weight. As the convicted person, her words can directly mobilise her supporters and refocus public attention on witnesses — particularly the young woman who has already testified to feeling threatened and unsafe.
So while it’s true the gag order can’t silence outside voices, it’s still a reasonable and proportionate measure within the Board’s jurisdiction: managing Sue’s conduct to reduce the foreseeable risk of renewed harassment.
You do have a point. But gagging a convicted person from proclaiming their innocence is egregious overreach. Let’s see what the court says about it (Sept 10).
What strikes me is that the Parole Board didn’t just set conditions at release and leave it at that. They tightened them twice more — first in December 2004 and again in May 2005. That pattern tells me this wasn’t arbitrary. It suggests the Board kept getting information or seeing risks that needed stronger controls.
Parole conditions aren’t static — the law lets the Board amend them whenever necessary to protect witnesses or the community. So the fact they chose to intervene twice in fairly quick succession points to real, ongoing concerns. In that light, the gag order looks less like censorship and more like a precautionary adjustment in response to concrete risks that emerged after release.
I wonder what transpired between December 2024 and May 2025 that led the Parole Board to inervene in May 2025.
If you’re right it should come out in the Supreme Court challenging the new restrictions…
Nick P: here’s one thing that happened during that intervening period: the Human Rights Law Centre filed a legal challenge against the Parole Board’s December 2024 condition imposing the ‘gag’ on Sue Neill-Fraser.
[see HRLC’s 28April2025 Media Release at: https://www.hrlc.org.au/media-releases/legal-challenge-filed-against-tasmanian-parole-boards-decision-to-gag-free-speech/%5D
One might well surmise that the May2025 further condition came as a result of the HRLC (28April2025) initiating the legal challenge to the Parole Board’s December 2024 ‘Sue banned from communicating with media’ condition.
Why would the Parole Board issue such a tightening of the existing gag condition?
Hey, it’s Tasmania! They do justice differently there ….
Garry, thanks for flagging the HRLC challenge — that’s an important piece of the timeline. However that doesn’t explain what prompted the Parole Board to modify the parole conditions in December 2024.
While the HRLC’s April 2025 filing may have prompted the Board to review its December condition, the legal basis for any tightening would still have to be risk management, not retaliation. And given the evidence that one witness had already felt unsafe and threatened in connection with this case, the Board could reasonably conclude that further restrictions were justified to reduce foreseeable harm.
In other words, the May 2025 condition looks less like the Board pushing back against HRLC and more like the Board doubling down on its protective function in the face of ongoing controversy.
Thanks for your generous reading of the situation. After a dozen years of observing and even interacting with elements of the Tasmanian justice system, I do not share your generous view.
Nick P . We know exactly who threatened the young woman- got her to change her sworn statement ! No sensible person believes that rubbish about DNA on the coppers booty… Meagan made an honest sworn statement – then the little darlings scared the shit out of her…put the gag on Poor Meagan….
True Michael.
Now, we know that person, Damien, who threatened Meaghan V into changing her statement and other, has since been rewarded for his ‘diligent’ efforts in both this instance and, the Jeff Thompson charges now dropped. He’s now INSPECTOR!
Michael and Geraldine,
It’s worth pointing out that Meaghan’s close friend Andrea has publicly confirmed that Karen Keefe did threaten Meaghan. This isn’t just speculation. On Andrew Urban’s Wrongful Convictions Report blog (Inside Story – Sue Neill-Fraser and Karen Keefe as Collateral Damage, October 1, 2021), Andrea replied directly to a question about whether the threat occurred. She stated unequivocally:
> “Yes she did 100% and karen knows she did but its easier to play the victim when things dont turn out as planned i suppose.”
(Andrea, comment, October 2, 2021)
You can see Andrea’s comment here: https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2021/10/01/inside-story-sue-neill-fraser-and-karen-keefe-as-collateral-damage/#comment-38803
This was in response to Abbi Bennett’s question about whether Keefe threatened Meaghan or whether she was simply pressured by police. Andrea’s reply leaves no doubt that, from someone who knew both Karen and Meaghan personally, the threat did happen.
It also aligns with what Meaghan herself told the court in 2017 — that Keefe threatened to put her in the boot of a car if she didn’t sign a statutory declaration. While Karen denied it and the charge was later discontinued, both Meaghan and Andrea independently described the same threat.
As previously advised, to avoid circular repetition, no further comments will be published regarding the Meaghan Vass/DNA elements of the Sue Neill-Fraser case – the Moderator.
2022 09 16 Neill-Fraser, Susan Blyth – Parole Board Decision
[https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/paroleboard/decisions-2022/neill-fraser,-susan-blyth]
Original (2022 09 16) ‘Special’ conditions:
Electronic monitoring
To obtain and comply with a mental health plan
To not contact named person directly or indirectly
Further (December 2024) condition:
Susan Neill-Fraser prohibited from communicating “directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim [her] alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction”. [https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/legal-challenge-filed-against-tasmanian-parole-boards-decision-to-gag-free-speech/]
Latest (May 2025) further condition:
Susan Neill-Fraser prohibited from communicating “directly or indirectly – including through third parties, written statements, electronic communications, social media platforms, television, radio, podcasts, streaming services, online video-sharing platforms, or any other public or broadcast media – to assert claims regarding [her] alleged innocence, wrongful conviction, or dispute the legitimacy of [her] conviction or sentencing” [https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/legal-challenge-susan-neill-fraser/]
FURTHER READING:
Parole Board of Tasmania
[https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/paroleboard]
Parole Board of Tasmania Annual Report 2023-24
[https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/790117/Parole-Board-of-Tasmania-Annual-Report-2023-24.pdf]
EXAMPLES OF PAROLE CONDITIONS:
Examples of standard and non-standard parole conditions are given in Annexures A and B at the end of that Annual Report.
COMMENT: It is hard to see to which of the above-mentioned categories the communication of a claim of innocence might belong. I wonder if this gagging of Susan Neill-Fraser might be understood as a perverse attempt by the Parole Board to interfere with and to assist in silencing the controversy which continues to surround the tainted conviction of Neill-Fraser.
BACKGROUND:
Nick P says (August 18, 2025 at 11:19 am “In my view, while everyone should be free to maintain their innocence, I can understand why the Parole Board imposed a restriction in this case. Some witnesses — for example, the woman whose DNA was on the yacht — have already been subject to intense public attention and could face harassment from supporters if Sue were to be allowed to re-litigate her trial and appeals through the media. To me, the gag order looks less like censorship and more like a precautionary measure to protect vulnerable people caught up in the case.”
COMMENT:
I strongly reject Nick P’s suggestion that the woman whose DNA was on the yacht [MV] could face harassment from supporters. In my view, (Sue Neill-Fraser’s) supporters have for years been careful not to do so. Indeed, I believe they have maintained an attitude of respect towards that woman whose part in this SNF saga began as a young, homeless teenager. No! Harassment? Yes … from TasPol! … look how they parked outside where she was staying, picked her up and put her in their car, arrested her for a tiny bit of dope in her handbag as she waited at the bus-stop, took her back to the cop shop and tried to get her to walk-back her statement of being on the yacht….
Nick P asked (August 19, 2025 at 1:39 pm ): “I wonder what transpired between December 2024 and May 2025 that led the Parole Board to inervene [sic] in May 2025”
The answer given (August 22, 2025 at 11:20 pm ) was that “the Human Rights Law Centre filed a legal challenge against the Parole Board’s December 2024 condition imposing the ‘gag’ on Sue Neill-Fraser.”
Nick P did choose to accept that as being a possible factor in the further tightening of the gag on Sue: However he states (August 24, 2025 at 2:09 pm ) that even so, “the legal basis for any tightening would still have to be risk management, not retaliation ”
COMMENT:
I’m not sure if Nick P in this last statement is either
-accepting that retaliation did occur in spite of the Board being required to impose such a condition on the basis of risk management
or
-asserting that the decision indeed had been made on the basis of risk management.
Perhaps Nick P could clear this up…
THE LEGALS:
The Parole Board takes into consideration various matters before making a decision about granting parole – as per s72(4) of the Corrections Act 1997: [https://www.justice.tas.gov.au/paroleboard] / [https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1997-051] These considerations include consideration of victim statements or those made by a victim’s parent or guardian. What is not listed for consideration is any ‘protective function’ of the Board vis à vis a witness. While s72 (4)(b) and s72 (4b) (l) give the Board scope for considering the protection of the public and for considering “any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant” it is not immediately apparent to me that either of these two sub-subsections were resorted to by the Board when it imposed the ‘no communications’ conditions..
Nick P has cited one witness (MV) as having expressed feeling (in Nick P’s words) “unsafe and threatened in connection with this case” and that such a consideration could have prompted the Board to “reasonably conclude that further restrictions were justified to reduce foreseeable harm.” (again, Nick’s words)
I don’t think so. It should be remembered that MV herself had appeared on 60 Minutes in order to support SNF and has long expressed concern for Sue. In any case that is all ‘water under the bridge’ … the ‘in the boot of a car’ threats to MV are long, long gone. Occam’s razor lets us cut Nick P’s Parole Board ‘would haves’ and ‘could haves’ away from his rationalising words.
He – at first instance – seems correct in writing [August 18, 2025 at 8:55 pm ] that “The Parole Board’s powers extend only to the parolee, not to journalists or the public. That’s why you and others can still debate the case freely.” That’s a little loose with the truth, e.g. see: s63(1) of the Act. Yet in spite of s63, it does seem as if we can still debate the case freely – just not Sue.
Again, all is not as it seems… I would presume that members of Sue’s Supporters Group – because of the Parole Board’s ‘directly or indirectly’ proviso – might feel inhibited in what they now say publicly and in what actions/events they now plan… for fear that the Board might claim that through them Sue had ‘directly or indirectly’ communicated claims of innocence… and thus revoke Sue’s bail.
And – please correct me if I’m wrong – if Sue is returned to jail, she will still have to serve all the time that was remaining when she began her parole … that is, the years since she has been on parole won’t count … she had 10 years to go when she was given parole … if her parole is revoked and she goes back in … she will still have 10 years to serve?
79. Power of Board to revoke parole orders, &c.
(1) Subject to subsection (2) , the Board may, at any time, of its own motion or on receiving a report from a probation officer or any other person –
(a) revoke a parole order; or
(b) vary, amend or confirm a parole order; or
(c) suspend a parole order on such terms as it thinks fit; or
(d) exercise in relation to a parole order more than one of its powers under paragraph (b) .
(2) Unless the Board considers it impracticable to do so, the Board is not to revoke or suspend a parole order granting parole to a prisoner unless it has first called on the prisoner to show cause why any of those powers should not be exercised.
(5) If a prisoner’s release on parole is revoked –
(a) in the case of a prisoner who is not a life prisoner, the prisoner is liable to serve the remainder of his or her sentence and the period of that release is not to be taken into account in determining how much of the term of his or her sentence remains to be served unless the Board otherwise directs; and
(b) in the case of a life prisoner, the prisoner is liable to be imprisoned for the remainder of his or her natural life.
Thanks Garry. You’re very patient with Nick. The case will be heard in a week … unless deferred, and then maybe we’ll have a better idea of what prompted te parole board’s latest restrictions. Assuming we get the truth … which I warn myself not to assume.
The legal system NEVER likes to be proven wrong.
I have had extensive experience of the legal system in N.S.W. over two and half decades and at very least, this can only be called an unsafe verdict. ⚖️
Gag orders are imposed by corrupt systems to protect the scurrilous systems they govern over..
The last thing the fermenting apple Island
judges could stomach (other than their second rate cage salmon) is a dear old Grandma verbally kicking their pompous arses….
If Sue Neill-Fraser was free to speak (as she would be in a decent society) – her truthful manner would easily shame these deservers of no repect !
The fact that these silencing orders have been made in recent months strongly suggests that people who should know better are scared that she might say something embarrassing to the legal system. Fight them Sue, on behalf of all of us who might be in your position: innocent but convicted through stuff ups and sheer vindictiveness.
What can Ms Neill-Fraser say now that she couldn’t say during police interviews or the trial or her appeals? Has he failed memory improved since her release?
Dear Nick P , There is no need for a gag order – is that what you’re saying ? DNA blue cloth- spanners screwdrivers and blood-soaked dinghies ! Thank you, Nick. You are a good man.
Personally, I would love to hear from Sue. Her thoughts on the gagging of Megan Vass and Megans terror of police bastardary – maybe police threats of imprisonment in the infamous Ashley .Tasmanian Juvenile rape centre ?
Appeals court judgements throughout Australian history of eventually proven wrongful convictions leave some of us dumbfounded and flabbergasted…not me- I find that Appeals Courts Judges should be relegated to the bleak past of a mongrel system…
What would you like to hear from Sue that hadn’t been addressed before? What can she say about the blue cloth? Considering that a number of people were on-board the yacht on the morning of 27th January, some of whom were setting up water pumps, do you think it likely that some of the people there on that morning used cloth to wipe their hands dry and left the cloth onboard? I can see several blue clothes in the photos of the yacht that was taken that day at the Constitution Dock.
In my view, the most despicable restraint (gag) on Sue is being forbidden to claim her innocence.
Nick P .The particular blue cloth that some of us are interested in – the blue cloth that was visible (and removed) from the deck before the Constitution Dock deliberate or incompetant contamination – Megan Vass wiped her DNA mouth on and left on the deck together with her DNA vomit ..Sue could comment on Megans response when offered protection by Tasmania’s police..ya gotta be nuts! Sue could also comment on the fact that the jury were never informed – that there was NO evidence of blood in the dinghy . Sue might ask – Is it normal court procedures for the judge to read to the jury the police prosecutors screenplay and add embellishments and references of his own ? Spanners- screwdrivers and fire extinguisher weaponry ideas reinforced by the judge… Two police prosecutors – no judge –
This business is definitely not just about poor Sue Neill-Fraser- its about the stinking systematic second rate Australian delivery of rotten outcomes- the inherent police and court conniving…
Sue Neill-Fraser v the devil ?
Fair Comment ?
In my view, while everyone should be free to maintain their innocence, I can understand why the Parole Board imposed a restriction in this case. Some witnesses — for example, the woman whose DNA was on the yacht — have already been subject to intense public attention and could face harassment from supporters if Sue were to be allowed to re-litigate her trial and appeals through the media. To me, the gag order looks less like censorship and more like a precautionary measure to protect vulnerable people caught up in the case.
A generous but misguided view, in my opinion, not supported by evidence. Nor by a statement from the Parole Board. Nor by common sense.
Thanks Andrew, I take your point that the Parole Board hasn’t published a detailed rationale for this condition. But in parole law, conditions are often imposed on a precautionary basis, not only when there is hard evidence of harm. Standard conditions usually include “no contact with victims or witnesses” precisely to prevent the risk of harassment or re-traumatisation, even if none has occurred before. In this case, given the very unusual level of publicity and the fact that at least one witness has spoken publicly of feeling pressured in the past, I can see why the Board might extend that protective logic to public statements. Without transparency from the Board, we are both inferring – you see censorship, I see precaution. The real issue may be that the Board’s lack of explanation creates the perception of arbitrariness, which fuels the very mistrust we are now debating.
Please see my reply to Donald.
I agree that parole conditions aren’t about censorship, they’re about risk management.
In this case there’s evidence that key witness that you are referring to was threatened (“put in a boot unless you said you were on the boat”), became visibly distressed in court, and has said she felt unsafe. If Sue were free to publicly re-litigate her trial, it would inevitably pull the young female witness back into the spotlight and risk further harassment. That’s why the Board’s restriction makes sense — it protects a vulnerable witness from renewed harm, which is a standard purpose of parole conditions.
This argument has no basis. The Parole Board’s gag doesn’t stop me and others (as has been done) from publicly challenging the trial and the conviction (as I have done multiple times).
While the parole board has applied a gag order to Sue there is another legal barrier for people that have been acquitted wishing to publish their position. And by publish that includes all the conditions that Gag order has outlined and imposed.
I hope that Sue is able to get her story out to public.
For those interested here is a brief outline of The Harman principle, also known as the implied undertaking or Harman undertaking, is a legal doctrine that prevents parties in legal proceedings from using documents or information obtained through compulsory court processes for purposes outside of the original litigation. This principle, established in the UK case Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department and adopted in Australia through cases like Hearne v Street (2008), ensures that information disclosed under court order is used solely for the specific legal proceedings and not for other, potentially damaging, purposes.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Nature of the Obligation:
The Harman principle isn’t merely a promise; it’s a substantive obligation, meaning it’s a legal requirement imposed by the court itself, not just a voluntary agreement.
Scope:
This obligation applies to documents and information obtained through various compulsory processes, including:
Documents inspected after discovery
Answers to interrogatories
Documents produced on subpoena
Witness statements
Affidavits
Information obtained through Anton Piller orders
Purpose:
The core principle is that information disclosed under compulsion by the court should only be used for the specific litigation in which it was disclosed.
Consequences of Breach:
Breaching the Harman undertaking can lead to contempt of court charges.
Seeking Release:
If a party wishes to use disclosed documents for purposes outside the original litigation, they must seek leave (permission) from the court that ordered the disclosure.
Exceptions:
The Harman undertaking can be lifted if there are specific circumstances, such as when the documents are needed to pursue other legal proceedings or when justice requires it, but this requires court approval.
Examples of Impermissible Use:
Using disclosed information for competitive advantage or providing it to the media are examples of actions that would likely breach the Harman undertaking.
Many thanks Steve. The key phrase here is “compulsory court processes”; and that’s not contemplated by Sue Neill-Fraser. The gag order goes much further. It gags her completely effectively from even mentioning, even from claiming her innocence of the crime. That is a preposterous overreach. Thank goodness there have been several books, a tv doco series and a doco film damning the conviction.
It might suit the clubby legal system of Tasmania, but it doesn’t fit with the requirements of a real justice system.
Thanks for this share. Very interesting information.
Given Andrew’s qualification concerning documents disclosed under the compulsion of the Court, I wonder what we might make of the HCA’s proviso “unless it is received into evidence”. The HCA is quoted in the following:
The following is also of interest:
FURTHER READING:
“A Criminal Lawyer’s Brief Guide to the Harman Obligation” / Richard Portello SC
https://qldbar.asn.au/baq/v1/viewDocument?documentId=2704
I am not a legal eagle but I totally support the recommendation of Escort J …….quash the conviction of murder on Susan Neil Frazer…….and charge members of the Tasmanian police force for their relentless pursuance of an innocent women by a bunch of biased men. Provide all evidence they have hidden, implied, and manufactured to the world.
When will this nightmare end for Sue ?
Cannot believe that after all this time & evidence, that Tasmanian authorities won’t just quash this travesty & let her be free.
Yes, the unreasonable expectation that someone cannot expose wrongful convictions is tantamount to a coverup of corruption in the courts and legal systems.