Citing several wrongful convictions examined on wrongfulconvictionsreport.org in his forthcoming book, Frank Valentine and the Abuse of Lady Justice – Presumption of Evil 2, author Andrew L. Urban condemns the justice system’s seeming indifference to injustice.
While the book reveals how the late Frank Valentine was convicted of historical sexual assaults of minors on the say-so of six complainants from the one institution, it also places the case in the wider context of the entire criminal justice system.
Readers may ponder not just at the many stories of injustice, but how callously the so called justice system allows such catastrophic outcomes to languish uncorrected. It is estimated that in the Anglosphere wrongful convictions of serious crimes account for 2 – 6% of prison inmates. If an airline had such a record of passenger injuries it would be grounded for ever. In 2021, for example, the U.S., commercial carriers flew over 7.8 million flights, with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigating 24 accidents. These resulted in 14 serious injuries and no deaths.
A society that cares so little about wrongful convictions is destined to incur the wrath of history; a legal system that does so is destined to lose the trust of the community and its legitimacy.
In the introduction to their book, Three False Convictions, Many Lessons: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions (Waterside Press), David C. Anderson and Adam Kirsch write:
“This book is for anyone who cares about justice. It is principally about the workings of the criminal law and specifically false allegations and charges that were compounded by defects in the justice systems (Italy, UK, US). It is meant to stir up thought and action by politicians, pressure groups and individuals of conscience who may suspect that the law, being riddled with complex rules, has for far too long been left entirely in the hands of lawyers. All too often it appears to be obsessed with process, procedure and legalities and to have ignored its primary purpose of delivering justice.” Amen….
Citing the Stefan Kiszko and Darlie Routier cases in their book, the authors find “the tendency of the justice systems towards a form of psychopathology – or ‘lock down’ – in which questions concerning the correctness of prosecutions, convictions or punishment are avoided on the basis that the system or its practitioners could not have got things so wrong. There are many other such examples from history in which supposed infallibility prevailed over plain common sense, getting at the truth and putting wrongs right.” Amen to that, too …
Like a long neglected overgrown garden, all weeds and prickly thistles, the legal system needs weeding and much remedial attention.
One comment made from time to time in judgements made about the behaviour and character of the Wrongfully Convicted while in prison – i find truly irksome .
If a citizen is obviously the innocent victim of a scurrilous judge / police prosecutor as was Sue Neill-Fraser- then whether they grow prize tomatoes in the prison slave garden or any other “goody two shoes” prison activities is surely irrelevant ? If the person is not guilty , then they are not guilty . So if their general manner is obnoxious – then that could be fair enough– look what the bastards have done to them – obnoxious ?
The South Australian mongrels were going to hang Ray Bailey, regardless of him screaming –
“ya just a mob of chunts”
(or not)
Should he have gone quietly like a little lamb – a victim of the proud Queensland Police promotional ambitions ?
Darryl Beamish another lamb sentenced to be hung by the West Australian ambitious police confession writer.
Andrew I write in strong support of the arguments advanced in The Case for Exemplary Damages: Punishment Over Payout by David Wright above.
The essay makes a compelling case that exemplary damages should serve their true purpose—not as token gestures, but as meaningful punishment and deterrence against misconduct by powerful institutions.
I believe that the case of Steven Fennell is uniquely positioned to test and elevate this principle. His circumstances reflect systemic failings of a scale and severity that few other matters could parallel. If he were to pursue exemplary damages, his case has the potential to set a new standard in this area of law, demonstrating that misconduct by state actors cannot simply be absorbed as a routine expense.
Mr Fennell himself has expressed some uncertainty about whether to take this path. He may choose to seek independent legal advice, or he may ultimately decide otherwise. That is, of course, his prerogative. What is clear, however, is that his matter provides a rare opportunity: it illustrates with stark clarity why token awards fail, and why courts must instead embrace the deterrent purpose of exemplary damages.
For too long, inadequate awards have allowed systemic misconduct to persist unchecked. The law now requires a test case that pushes beyond symbolism and into genuine punishment and deterrence. If pursued, I believe Mr Fennell’s matter could provide precisely that.
Andrew. The changes in the Scotlandish justice system – doing away with the NOT PROVEN outcome. Will surely make it easier for the Tedeschism method of jury fooling. Is making wrongful convictions more likely just another victory for the psychopath types who did over Sue Neill-Fraser ? I have been in the policeforcers for 30 years – I know when someone is guilty – nuts or psycho ?
The Case for Exemplary Damages: Punishment Over Payout
Exemplary damages occupy a unique and often misunderstood place within the law. Unlike compensatory or aggravated damages, their purpose is not to restore the claimant to their original position, nor to soothe wounds with monetary balm. Rather, exemplary damages exist to punish outrageous conduct, to send a message that certain abuses of power are intolerable, and to deter future wrongdoing. They are society’s formal declaration that some acts are so corrosive to public trust that ordinary remedies are insufficient.
And yet, in practice, exemplary damages have too often been neutered. Awards remain tokenistic—figures so low they barely register as punishment. In cases of systemic misconduct, courts have issued orders in the range of $10,000 to $50,000. For powerful institutions with billion-dollar budgets, such penalties are trivial, absorbed like a rounding error. They do not punish, they do not deter, and they certainly do not reform. They simply signal that misconduct is the “cost of doing business.”
The Rationale for True Punishment
The law must not lose sight of the true purpose of exemplary damages: punishment. This is not about granting a windfall to the claimant; it is about holding defendants—particularly state actors—to account in a way that stings. Without genuine pain for the wrongdoer, there is no incentive to change behaviour. Courts have rightly imposed fines, penalties, and custodial sentences where necessary to deter individuals. Institutions must face a comparable reckoning.
Consider the analogy of road safety. When seatbelt fines were low, compliance was poor. It was only when penalties were raised substantially—accompanied by demerit points and strict enforcement—that behaviour changed. Why? Because the penalty finally hurt. If token fines cannot keep people buckled in, how can token exemplary awards be expected to keep powerful institutions in check?
The False Shield of “Taxpayer Burden”
One of the most persistent arguments against substantial exemplary damages is that they unfairly burden taxpayers. This is a misdirection. The true taxpayer burden lies not in the damages awarded, but in the misconduct itself—the wasted investigations, the wrongful prosecutions, the years of unnecessary imprisonment, the squandered court resources. Public money is already lost on misconduct; the question is whether the system will continue to absorb such losses without correction.
To frame exemplary damages as a drain is to ignore their potential as an investment.
A robust award forces institutions to confront the financial reality of their failures. It makes reform economically unavoidable. Just as corporations change practices after massive fines, public institutions will only alter behaviour when the cost of misconduct outweighs the cost of compliance.
Toward a Symmetrical Standard
If the law is to take exemplary damages seriously, a new paradigm is required—one that links the award to the scale of institutional misconduct. A system where an agency can waste millions of dollars pursuing wrongful or malicious prosecutions but face a penalty of less than one per cent of that cost is a system of impunity, not justice.
Exemplary damages must be symmetrical. If misconduct wastes $5 million of public resources, the penalty must be of a magnitude that reflects not only the harm inflicted on the individual but also the systemic failure inflicted on the community. Anything less is a token gesture.
Setting a Higher Standard
The judiciary must resist conservatism that reduces exemplary damages to mere symbolism. The purpose of precedent is not to calcify inadequate standards but to raise them when justice demands it. For over fifty years, awards have been too timid, too concerned with appearances of “benefit” to claimants rather than the necessity of punishment. Courts must shift their focus: exemplary damages are not about enrichment, they are about deterrence.
If the law is to serve as a guardian of the public good, then exemplary damages must be wielded with real force. Awards must be large enough to pierce institutional armour, compel reform, and declare to all future wrongdoers that abuse of power carries consequences that cannot be ignored.
Conclusion
Exemplary damages are society’s most pointed instrument of moral condemnation. They exist not to soothe but to sting. Not to compensate but to correct. Not to enrich but to punish. Courts must abandon the half-measures of token awards and embrace a standard that truly deters misconduct. The message must be unmistakable: in a civilised society, high-handed abuse of power will not be met with gestures, but with judgments that bite.
Excellent.
Steven Fennell.. When Andrew gets the call from Rome.. (heaven knows they need him)
Wrongful Convictions Report needs to
be continued..
A very important information service to the citizens..
Taspol’s PR branch could place a tender..
Was that an agonising scream of
anguish ? Australian Appeals Court judges could do the job on us..
More screaming ?
A committee of 12 builders labourers..?
Or right then ..how’s about a CCRC without any retired magistrates / judges
No referrals back to the lunatical system that caused the wrongful convictions in the first event.. we are all well aware of their moral failings.!
My QC Tony Bellanto , and my Solicitor friend Andrew. , read judge Taylor’s instructions to the Jury . They described the transcript as incomprehensible gobbledygook . Then the listened to the tape and said it was even worse. Part of the judges instructions included telling the jury , I hade made admissions. !!!! My SC in the trial did not object and the DPP and police did not question or even raise this. In spite of the fact that my accuser’s statement actually says. No he did not admit anything. And that statement contradicted the fact that she told a counselor I made admissions and the judge went with the counselors notes. Mistrial Material. ? I sincerely hope it will be the silver bullet when I get to run my fraud case against DPP and against the fraudulent police investigation. Pv.
The judge may have been drunk/tipsy at time of writing their instructions to the jury & taping. Seriously.
Human errors that stand uncorrected are too costly.
Psychopathology.. For far too long the justice system has been in the hands of psychopaths ?
The supposed infallibility prevailing over common sense ?
Is that not a reasonable description of the typical proceedings in an Australian Appeals Court ?
Sue Neill-Fraser had her guilt decided ,
on appeal by the black clothed psychopaths ?
Ray Bailey was murdered by the cliquey South Australian psycho group.
There is no other possible conclusion we can arrive at.!
So is it fair to say that the lunatics are running the asylum ?
Andrew L. Urban’s persistence in documenting wrongful convictions is both courageous and necessary. Truth Be Told – Presumption of Evil 2 continues his invaluable work of pulling back the curtain on a justice system that too often chooses reputation and process over truth and fairness.
By situating individual cases, like that of Frank Valentine, within the broader landscape of systemic failure, Urban reminds us that wrongful convictions are not isolated anomalies, but symptoms of a deeper dysfunction.
The strength of his writing lies not only in exposing injustice, but in challenging readers to confront the uncomfortable truth: indifference to the wrongly convicted is itself a moral failing of society. Urban’s comparisons; such as likening wrongful conviction rates to airline safety, drive home the absurdity of our tolerance for preventable human catastrophe within the legal system.
His voice stands alongside that of Anderson and Kirsch, whose reflections on “the psychopathology of unjust prosecutions” echo the very themes Urban has been tracking in Australia. Together, these works build a compelling case for urgent reform and greater accountability in how we investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate alleged crimes.
Andrew’s work is not just a service to the wrongly convicted; it is a service to all of us who rely on the justice system to be fair, transparent, and humane. By forcing society to look at the weeds and thistles choking the garden of justice, he calls for nothing less than its renewal.
I just lost a business opportunity which would have paid my bills because someone took advantage of my conviction. I keep receiving such punches to the head even though I served time for something I didn’t do. I could go nuts after 17 years of the effects of a false charge and a wrongful conviction