LIA, the new Legal Intel AI, has identified at least four issues as potential grounds that might be framed as a ‘fraud on the court’ in the case of Sue Neill-Fraser. One would be enough. Given the shameful history of the case at the hands of Tasmania’s legal system, nobody should be surprised. But why now?
The ‘door’ was opened by an article in the Australian Criminal Law journal by Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles, as we reported in July 2025. Then in November 2025, we were introduced to LIA and did a ‘test drive’ of LIA, with a post conviction case (anonimity requested), which proved the effectiveness of this new tool. (Familiarity with the Neill-Fraser case is advised to fully appreciate this article.)
Now we have tasked LIA to identify any grounds for a fraud pleading in the Neill-Fraser case. Here is what LIA found:
Based on the controversies and facts identified, the following are potential grounds that might be framed as a “fraud-on-the-court”.
- False or Misleading “Identification” Evidence — the witness who allegedly saw the couple aboard the Four Winds that morning later changed identity, and the jury was not told of prior inconsistencies or retraction. If the original or trial-version identification was false, the jury was misled; this was false or perjured testimony fundamental to prosecution.
- Mischaracterised Forensic / Forensic-Science Evidence — e.g. positive luminol / blood-trace “screening” results presented or led as suggestive when confirmatory tests were negative or not done. Misleading forensic evidence is a classic ground for fraud or wrongful conviction if experts or the Crown deliberately overstate reliability.
- Suppressed or Non-disclosed Exculpatory Evidence — including contradictory DNA results (glove, deck DNA), forensic reports, or information about alternative suspects (homeless persons, others with access). Non-disclosure of material favourable to defence undermines fairness — if deliberate or reckless, may amount to fraud or abuse of process.
- Fabricated or Reconstructed “Sequence of Events” Evidence — such as the police’s “reconstruction” of how the body must have been moved, assumed murder weapon (wrench) though no wrench found, hypotheticals presented as fact. When a reconstruction is speculative but presented as fact, that misleads jury; if knowingly presented despite lack of evidentiary support, may be fraudulent.
The trial was held some 15 years ago and appeals have failed. That doesn’t matter. The Crown has a ‘forever duty’ to disclose anything that might assist an accused person – that person is entitled to assume the Crown will not lead false or misleading evidence – that person is not required to examine the crown case to see if their evidence has been defective – they are entitled to rely upon the assumption that the Crown will disclose anything which might assist them.
The best part of pleading (and proving) fraud on the court is the process: unlike everything else in the legal system it is relatively simple (once the pleading has been properly formulated). Moles says “it is an unusual and remarkably simple procedure. Leave to bring the action is not required, the application is to a single judge of the Supreme Court (in this case Tasmania), it is heard as a civil matter (on a balance of probabilities) and if successful the judge can set aside a judgment of any other court including the appeal court and the High Court. The fraud issue is the only matter to be raised in the application.
“It could open a whole new avenue to deal with the worst of the wrongful conviction cases,” says Moles, “the same procedure is available in any common law jurisdiction.”
Footnote: This article is published on 2 December, 2025, the day the Legislative Council of the Tasmanian Parliament discussed the latest Etter/Selby report which reveals extensive errors in the police investigation into the murder of Bob Chappell, Neill-Fraser’s long time partner.