So much is wrong with Nicole Noman’s judgement in the 2017 historical sexual abuse accusations trial of Frank Valentine, (the appeal document listed over 500 points) I present only a representative few that stand out as worthy of this Certificate. Adding to the debacle, three judges dismissed the appeal entirely. They will be considered next …
The Red Herring Certificate identifies prosecutors and judges who, in our sincere opinion supported by evidence, have helped bring about or maintain wrongful convictions. The Inaugural Red Herring Certificate went to Tim Ellis SC, the former Tasmanian DPP whose prosecution of Sue Neill-Fraser led to what is widely regarded as a wrongful conviction. He called every element (dozens of times) that didn’t fit his narrative a red herring.
In February 2019, then 79 year old Frank Valentine was indicted on numerous charges of sexual and physical assault on several complainants in the period spanning February 1971 to January 1974; that is 45 – 48 years prior. At that time he was employed by the New South Wales Department of Child and Social Welfare, first at the Parramatta Girls Training School (PGTS) and later at the Daruk Boys’ Training School (Daruk). He was tried in front of judge Noman alone, who found him guilty on 21 counts and sentenced him to a total of 22 years, with a non-parole period of 13 years. His appeal, heard on 19 October, 2022, was dismissed, except for one count. Frank Valentine spent five years in prison before he died on August 8, 2024 of natural causes, aged 84.
(“It has to be asked whether the Royal Commission and the subsequent media coverage, police investigation, charging, trial and conviction were the actual causes of Mr. Valentine’s death or at least contributed substantially to his death,” his wife Maris wonders.)
Introductory remarks in Judge Noman’s Reasons disclose that the trial judge warned herself that a special caution was to be exercised before accepting identification or recognition evidence. “However,” the Valentine legal team arguses, “it is contended that the generality of the warning was inadequate. It is contended the trial judge patently erred by not having proper regard to specific dangers which arose in respect of certain complainants which was capable of raising a doubt, and did raise a doubt, as to the appellant as perpetrator.”
Valentine gave evidence at trial denying the offences. “It is contended that the trial judge erred in rejecting the entirety of his evidence, a critical matter on which a determination of guilt must have depended.
“In respect of each of the complainants it is contended that the Reasons do not disclose a careful scrutiny of the evidence in the Crown case and all of the verdicts are unreasonable.
“Because the trial judge was bound to state the reasons for arriving at the decision reached, the reasons actually stated are to be understood as recording the steps that were in fact taken in arriving at conclusions of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It is contended the trial judge fell into various failures to examine all of the material relevant to the particular issue and in so far as her Honour did not refer to that evidence, it may be inferred that it was not considered.”
Given that the complainants’ testimony was the only evidence on which the judge relied, this was not a case where simply accepting the complainants as appearing to be honest or “doing their best” overcame the presumption of innocence and contradictions with other evidence.
Valentine’s case, just by way of example in respect of complainant DW, was, entirely to the contrary effect namely, corroborated by documentary materials and other evidence, the accuracy of which was not challenged by the Crown. Yet, her Honour was satisfied of guilt including because DW possessed the “ring of truth.”
We would go so far as to say this judge should go to judge school. Unless, of course, it was a deliberately wrongful judgement, protected by judicial immunity.
“This newspaper,” writes lawyer & columnist Janet Albrechtson in The Weekend Australia (23/10/25) “has reported on a string of cases in which judges have accused the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, run by Sally Dowling, of running baseless sexual assault prosecutions that have no hope of securing a conviction. This push for “victim-centric justice” – even before the law has ruled that there is, on the evidence, a victim – may hearten alleged complainants.
“However, we should ask whether it also has every prospect of damaging the lives of men who should be presumed innocent.”
Victim-centric is not to be confused with, nor replace, evidence-centric justice …
“Wokeness, to use the common catch-all phrase, has a more serious and negative impact in some fields – like the law – where it has encouraged a growing disdain for, and ignorance of, fundamental legal principles.”
Coming soon: the joint Red Herring Certificate for the appeal judges Basten AJA, Button J and Wilson J