Andrew L. Urban
As regular readers know, Sue Neill-Fraser was convicted of murdering her partner Bob Chappell on Australia Day 2009. In 2010, she was sentenced to 23 years in jail, released on parole* in October 2022. She is widely believed (by lawyers as well as the general public) to have been wrongfully convicted. Only Tasmania’s incompetent/malevolent legal and political establishment protects the conviction – for self-serving reasons. A good case to test whether parole is wrong.
“I have long been convinced that the very concept of parole is wrong,” writes Anthony Daniels in Quadrant, “ever since I was asked in the prison in which I worked as a doctor to speculate on the future conduct of prisoners in order that they might, or might not, be released early in their sentences. Such speculations, in which before long I refused to indulge, could be wrong in both directions: they might predict future criminality where none would occur, and future good conduct where recidivism would occur.”
Daniels, a columnist for whom I have deep respect, goes on to argue that “The system of parole is against the rule of law, for in effect some men were to be punished (by not being released early) relative to others on the basis of extremely fallible and arbitrary speculations, rather than on evidence which was beyond reasonable doubt. They were to be punished not for what they had done but for what someone opined that they might do in the future. This was more like a system of lettres de cachet, albeit more often a lenient than a severe one, than a system of criminal justice such as that which we like to tell ourselves that we live under.”
Daniels refers to convictions being found beyond reasonable doubt; the trouble is, this assumes a perfectly functioning justice system, which it clearly is not. My point is that if all convictions were really beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no wrongful convictions. But the argument that parole is wrong falls foul of a system that produces too many wrongful convictions; where the crime is serious and warrants lengthy prison time, parole is not wrong. It can and does reduce time spent is prison for those who, like Sue Neill-Fraser, shouldn’t be in prison at all. That is even when the conviction stands. Yes, it also favours the guilty, but that is in keeping with the old legal formulation that ‘it is better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent suffer’.
Tackling a related topic, Daniels says “Criminals, or those who have committed criminal acts, are often sentenced more severely or less according to whether or not they have expressed remorse for what they have done. They are also released on parole, or not, on the same grounds. If there is such a thing as wilful naivety, this seems to me wilfully naive.
It is obvious that where there is both a demand and a reward for expressions of remorse, there will be a supply. Where such expressions are rewarded, it is impossible to know whether or not they are sincere.”
Again, this view ignores the instance of innocents being found guilty where expressing remorse contradicts claims of innocence. Derek Bromley suffered many years in prison without parole for a murder as he refused to express remorse for a crime he insists he did not commit. He, too, was paroled eventually, only after the High Court agreed to hear his appeal.
Advocates for the publicly providing personally identifiable information about convicted pedophiles, often with the intent to harass or cause distress, also ignore the reality of wrongful convictions. We believe the safer option is to leave it to police to monitor offenders; they already have a register of them.
*Sue Neill-Fraser to challenge new Parole Board restrictions
Tasmanian Supreme Court on August 31, 2026 will finally hear the challenge to the latest parole restrictions imposed on Sue Neill-Fraser, prohibiting her from claiming her innocence of the 2009 murder. The legal team representing her will comprise two from the Human Rights Law Centre (Melbourne) and three from the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group (also from interstate). The Tasmanian Parole Board last year acted contrary to the High Court’s rulings when it tightened the parole condition on Sue Neill-Fraser, as we outline HERE