Andrew L. Urban
In the latest explosive Etter/Selby report tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament this week digging into the police investigation of the Sue Neill-Fraser conviction, the authors ask: Why did that failure to investigate and properly disclose information happen?
That is the question that has haunted the Sue Neill-Fraser case from the very beginning. And never answered. Conjecture, however, is rife. Should we assume it is severe police incompetence – and the desire to hide it? Or is it driven by some malice – and the desire to hide it? In time, the truth will out …
The authors state: “The evidence (including the results of several years of RTI (aka FOI) applications to reluctant police) demonstrates that the police had reason to suspect the involvement of others but chose not to properly investigate. In so far as they did make inquiries, it seems they failed to share that information with the prosecution and the court, a fundamental contravention of their duty.”
The President of the Sue-Neill Fraser Support Group, Rosie Crumpton-Crook, says in response to the report: “It beggars belief that for years, the Tasmanian Government has appeared to ignore irrefutable evidence that points to the fact that Sue Neill-Fraser has been wrongly convicted. Barbara Etter and Hugh Selby have worked tirelessly to once again present evidence that shows a properly independent inquiry is long overdue.
The Tasmanian Government cannot continue to obfuscate with regards to holding an inquiry.
I often find myself asking why is the government so reluctant to have this case independently assessed? Why have they failed to ensure that potential lines of inquiry, which have emerged over sixteen years, are properly investigated? Why have they failed to ensure that there is disclosure of crucial evidence? Is this a case of poor practice or something more sinister? If the Tasmanian authorities are so confident in the conviction surely they should welcome an inquiry.
The recent amendment to Sue’s parole order effectively gags Sue, and remember, there is no Tasmanian legislation that prevents parolees from speaking to the media, the amendment is all encompassing, it appears to prevent Sue from speaking to anyone other than her lawyer about her alleged innocence / wrongful conviction. When you add this to the fact that Barbara Etter and Hugh Selby have uncovered evidence, which was not disclosed to Sue’s legal team, then it makes me think that the Tasmanian authorities have something to hide. I am sure I am not alone with those thoughts.
I did not meet Sue until after she was released from prison, and I have come to know her very well over the past three years. She is undoubtedly the bravest person I know, her stoicism is humbling. She is the victim of what appears to be an egregious miscarriage of justice and it is time someone in the Tasmanian Government had the courage to lift the gagging order and ensure that a Commission of Inquiry is established.”
But of course, the appeal court should have overturned the conviction on the basis of the manifestly false and misleading evidence put to the jury at trial. Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles reminds that “The forensic science evidence was clearly false and nonsensical – the prosecutorial submissions were monstrous.” He goes on to reaffirm what he has previously stated, that there is “clear and unimpeachable evidence contained in the transcript of the trial…”
And in the book by this writer.
As has always been the case, only Tasmanian public opinion can open this can of worms and this report is a potential can opener, given the public is swayed by perception as much as legal argument. The Mercury’s editorial no doubt helps: “A mixture of new science and uncovered evidence could once again shake the foundations of one of Tasmania’s most divisive criminal cases and many would argue it deserves the full weight of independent scrutiny.
“If credible scientific or evidentiary developments cast real doubt on a conviction, those developments must be examined – no matter how much time has passed or how uncomfortable the process may be.
“Tasmania’s justice system prides itself on fairness and transparency. Both will be tested by how authorities respond to this latest evidence.”
I would argue that based on its track record, Tasmania’s justice system has no right to pride itself on anything in regard to its abominable actions in this case. Shame is the appropriate feeling …