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.
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.
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?
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.