On Tuesday afternoon (Sept. 15, 2026), it took the Supreme Court’s Justice Estcourt less than an hour (a millisecond in law time) to extinguish the Tasmanian Parole Board’s restrictive parole condition that would have prevented Sue Neill-Fraser from proclaiming her innocence.
Justice Estcourt’s decision appears to have treated the Parole Board’s latest speech restriction as invalid because the Board had no lawful basis for imposing that condition in the circumstances, and because the condition impermissibly burdened political communication. The particularly significant point is that the condition was not merely struck down as “too broad”: the Board’s decision-making process itself was defective, including reliance on material that was not properly established as part of the Board’s lawful reasoning.
A huge media scrum was waiting outside the court for the outcome of the hearing, which was initiated by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) in April 2025, arguing that this condition preventing Sue from speaking to the media and third parties is unreasonable, improper and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
The HRLC argued that the gag order was invalid on the grounds that its conditions were “intolerably uncertain”; that it was legally unreasonable being based on an account of the law which does not exist, and that the Parole Board failed to afford Ms Neill-Fraser procedural fairness when it twice met without her knowledge.
The Parole Board was further humiliated when it was discovered that a key case authority presented by the Justice Department was a hallucination invented by artificial intelligence.
Sue Neill-Fraser said in a statement outside the court: “I would like to emphasise that in challenging the parole order it has never been my intention to cause anguish or distress to others,” she said.
“I have always maintained my innocence. I am continuing in the quest to clear my name and to advocate for the broader issue of wrongful convictions in Australia. I cannot walk away from this.
“I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the Human Rights Law Centre and the barristers who have worked tirelessly on this matter. I am so grateful for all of the support that I have received from countless people.”
Clearly there are two main camps arguing amongst themselves in this long-running blog. The “Sue is innocent” group and the “Sue is guilty” group. In truth, the only person who actually knows if Sue murdered Bob is Sue herself. I belong to the “I don’t know what happened to Bob” group. And on that basis Sue should be presumed innocent. Because what happened to Sue during the farcical trial could also happen any of us – stitched up by blinkered police and zealous prosecutors while the judge, defence and jury are asleep at the wheel.
Then there is incupatory evidence…or lack of it. Or speculation of it… Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
I too don’t know what happened to Bob.
The issue isn’t whether you know what happened to Bob, but whether you know the full evidence in the case (the trial evidence; the appeal evidence; and the evidence in the two Etter & Selby reports); whether you are able to evaluate that evidence in an unbiased and objective manner; whether you have correctly interpreted the evidence; whether you are able to use your life experience to make a decision on what is reasonable; and whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a certain character (Peter Lozo) who appears to have invested a lot of time analysing people’s opinions on the case. I just read a couple of his comments at
Time to end the farce of a wrongful conviction | Canberra CityNews: https://share.google/peEKGNiV0lx5hJU35
If you are interested in his other comments on Hugh Selby’s articles, see:
‘Rotten to its core’: No saying sorry in Tasmanian justice | Canberra CityNews
https://share.google/MbHZnquoj2GBuqa7G
The false weights that unfairly tip the scales of justice | Canberra CityNews
https://share.google/dAqWBWYqL2yvv88lI
He analysed the weather conditions, orientation of the yacht, etc, etc. to decide that Vass wasn’t on Four Winds. He also looked at the science of DNA degradation to conclude that Vass DNA wasn’t deposited on the night of Australia Day 2009. He also analysed various Vass statements (on 60 minutes, in the Court in 2017, and in 2021 to conclude that Vass wasn’t on Four Winds).
Blah blah blah … you and Lozo (and a couple of others) have regurgitated the ridiculous and desperate ‘Vass wasn’t on the boat’ sleight of hand routines too many times over the years. It is still ridiculous balderdash.
Andrew: Mein Gott im Himmel..! It’s 4am-A phoney epiphany maybe ? We all know Meagan Vass was on the Four Winds.. We have all completely missed another screenplay the prosecution team could have and should have used. I’m flabbergasted ! I can see clearly now..! It was them two sheilas together..Meagan escaped on a classic plea deal – Sue was the patsy..!
Good (early) morning! The film studio boss has accepted your pitch for a satirical movie with the working title Me(aghan) and Sue. But you won’t be allowed to shoot it in the lawless wilds of Tasmania.
Andrew: i tried to make a useful contribution- interesting that Don didn’t also see thru the gobbledygook of Bunnings shopping times and colours of small boats. Sue and Meagan were buddies..Meagan tried to help. Never forget her reaction when offered Taspol protection. Horror! Good bye – the nurses are coming with the trolley..
What stands out to me about this is that the issue goes beyond whether people agree or disagree about Sue Neill-Fraser’s case.
It is about what happens when an established position is challenged and whether the people or institutions involved remain genuinely open to that challenge.
A decision-making process is only as strong as its willingness to examine information that doesn’t fit comfortably within the existing position. Evidence isn’t supposed to become less relevant simply because it creates difficulties for a conclusion that has already been reached. Nor should someone exercising their right to question that conclusion be treated as though the questioning itself is the problem.
That is particularly important in a case where scientific understanding and the interpretation of forensic evidence can develop over time. What matters is not protecting an existing narrative, but being prepared to ask whether the evidence still supports it when examined with the best information available.
And there is an important distinction between saying that an alternative explanation has been proved and saying that the existing explanation has not been adequately established. The latter is a perfectly legitimate question, particularly where the criminal standard of proof is involved.
Perhaps that is the broader lesson here. Justice isn’t served by requiring people to stop questioning a conclusion simply because that conclusion has existed for a long time. Nor is it served by assuming that every challenge must be wrong simply because it challenges what came before.
The ability to question, scrutinise and speak freely is not an inconvenience to a justice system. It is one of the mechanisms by which a justice system can discover that it may have got something wrong.
Which is all true…and proves that what Tasmania has can not be truthfully called a ‘justice system’.
If people want to challenge the established position then they better do it with the correct interpretation of the evidence that led to the conviction. Too many people in the Neill-Fraser case tried to challenge Sue’s conviction with biased and erroneous interpretation of various bits of evidence. I can name the people and what went wrong in their interpretation.
1. Eve Ash in her first documentary related to the perception of grey dinghy.
2. Barbara Etter in relation to memory
3. Bob Moles in relation to his interpretation of the forensic expert evidence about the luminol
4. Colin McLaren: about proposing that two people would have been required to extract the body through the saloon’s skylite hatch; ignored the rigged winch on the main mast and that the rope that was found dangling down that hatch ran all the way to the winch and was wound around it; proposing the silly theory of vomit even though there was no evidence of vomit at location 11.
5.Etter & Selby: erroneous interpretation of the scientific literature related to DNA decay; also ignoring the conflict in the timing when Vass left the Mara House and when Conde saw a grey dinghy at portside of Four Winds; also ignored the rigged winch on the main mast and the rope from it to the saloon’s skylite hatch.
All of the above have been discussed on Andrew’s blog over the years by technically and scientifically competent people.
Well said. There was an unfortunate tendency for those trying to “help” Sue by invoking magical thinking when looking at the forensic evidence. Bottom line is that none of the forensic evidence presented at her trial incriminated Sue. None of it. But a gullible jury accepted the spin put on the evidence by the prosecution and police. Sad day for the justice system in Tasmania.
The ongoing ineptitude of the Tasmanian legal system is beyond farcical. It is a disgrace. The national spotlight should be on this complete incompetence which has been ongoing since 2009….police, judiciary, the Executive are all implicated. How can this be? This is Australia…
the fact that they had to use AI in an attempt to explain the justification for what they did emphasizes that they had not established any proper justifications for their actions before they implemented those restrictions.
The parole board need to be penalised.
Andrew: Thanks for transmitting this happy message..! It would have been a less happy night for this old codgeriser had Sue Neill-Fraser- Sue been gagged without just cause…The whole episode of Tasmanian justice shenanigans is becoming almost ancient history ..BUT ..lest we forget! Like hell we will..!
It was a very pleasing outcome. There have been many many hours spent listening to legal arguments in court for Sue’s case & other associated cases.
It was a happy day and may there be many more where Sue is cleared of the crime she did not commit.
There is no evidence that can clear her. For a while after the failure of her 2021 appeal, I thought that the 2025 Etter & Selby report was looking promising. But then Lozo put in his two cents’ worth and identified numerous errors and omissions in it, as well as serious misinterpretations of the scientific data relating to the decay of DNA in saliva.
When I read that he had emailed the Tasmanian Members of the Legislative Council with his critique of the Etter & Selby report, I knew that the report would be scrapped and that the vote in the Legislative Council would be delayed indefinitely.
Perhaps Etter & Selby will now seek expert forensic opinion and produce a revised report supported by better scientific data on DNA decay in saliva when it is exposed directly to solar ultraviolet radiation at UV Index levels within the relevant range of 8–10.
Excuse me butting in…Fiona can reply for herself. But I just want to point out that it is not up to the accused (now convicted) to “clear” herself. It was up to the prosecution to provide evidence – evidence – to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of thousands and as revealed by the courtbtranscript, that threshold was never reached.
Now you can ask her to write an article to your blog. I am interested in her whereabouts between 4pm and 8pm on Australia Day 2009. Was it her that was spotted on a light coloured Zodiac sometime between 7:45 pm and 8:15 pm near the location of Four Winds heading towards the yacht club.
Doesn’t seem to be much point, since you have an unshakable belief in her guilt, judging by the totality of your comments over the years.
It is true that I belong to the group Garry Stannus referred to as the ‘Sue-did-it’ types (“Meaghan Vass was on the yacht, Sue Neill-Fraser was not. OK?” | Wrongful Convictions Report).
Anyway, I would love to see an article by Susan Neill-Fraser on your blog explaining what psychological literature on human memory she can cite to account for her selective memory loss during the period from 4:00 pm to 8:30 pm. The sighting of the light-coloured Zodiac occurred during that time frame.
I can see the horse you’re flogging, Don; it’s dead. You can make better use of your energy…with respect.