Paperback and hardcover editions of Andrew L. Urban’s exposé, Presumption of Evil – Noel Greenaway, sexual abuser or collateral damage? are now available on Amazon, coinciding with the August 31, 2024 conference in Sydney, Restoring The Presumption of Innocence.
First published on Kindle in February 2024, with a foreword by Margaret Cunneen SC, the book delivers a detailed deconstruction of Greenaway’s conviction showing it is unsafe. “It is one of the most egregious cases of the abandonment of the presumption of innocence I have encountered,” says Urban, who has published two previous books on wrongful convictions and has explored two dozen cases at wrongfulconvictionsreport.org.
In the case of Noel Greenaway, the presumption of innocence was ignored in favour of uncorroborated testimony from half a dozen elderly women who claimed – for the first time – to have been sexually and physically abused by Greenaway back in the 60s, at the Parramatta Training School for Girls, an institution for delinquents. In 2020, Greenaway was in his 80s when sentenced to 20 years in jail, following a trial that was triggered by him being named in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
In his book, Urban quotes Greenaway who vehemently denies the accusations and as he sees it today from his prison cell, the seeds of the unfounded accusations against him of child sex abuse were planted, not intentionally directed at him, by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she announced a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, in November 2012, under Peter McClellan AM. It was formally launched in January 2013.
The National Redress Scheme was created in response to The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. By 28 January 2022, the Scheme had received over 13,541 applications, made 8,520 decisions — including 7,379 payments, totalling over $636.3 million, with an average of $86,236.
From his prison cell (his “executive suite” as he sometimes jokingly puts it), Noel sees things quite clearly. He writes, “…someone had to be made responsible for the bad publicity received by NSW and other Governments which followed from the Royal Commission hearings. The Commission was only too happy to hear the ‘stories’ told by people such as ex-inmates of Institutions. Witnesses, in Private Sessions, and before the Commission were free to besmirch Institutions and individuals at will. This approach by the Commission has led to many people being named adversely and then being prosecuted by the Police. This of course was to protect the reputation of the Government at the expense of Institutions such as the Churches, and State and private care homes and Training Schools for delinquent children.
“The prosecution of individuals was also designed to appease those in the community who were naïve enough to believe the fabrications, lies and general criticism which was designed by ex-inmates and their supporters to name individuals out of revenge and to enhance their chances of claiming redress for concocted crimes committed against them.
“It was a naive decision probably made in a panic to try to protect the position of the Department and the Government. It should never have been made especially when it would have been clear to anyone who had Residential Care experience which would have revealed that the ex-inmates of Institutions can have ulterior motives for fabricating stories. Whoever made the decision did not care that a retired former officer could spend years in prison as a result of the Legal System in New South Wales not being equipped to see the whole picture. The result has been a catastrophic failure of the Legal System
“Amongst those giving evidence were ex-inmates of two Training Schools at which I had worked as an Administrative Officer in 1964 – 1967 and in 1971 – 1977. These were the Training School for Girls, Parramatta and Ormond School Thornleigh, also a Training School for girls.
“I do not know how many girls passed through the two Training Schools in the relevant time but on estimate would be about 600. During that period no girl complained about me or any other Administrative Officer. Had there been a complaint they would have been investigated and appropriate action taken by the Department.”
Some will dismiss Greenaway’s claim, shrugging, “he would say that”. But this book presents documentation that supports Greenaway’s innocence.
Andrew – It’s needed for judges to be seen as within the acceptable middle of ideological positioning – what the hell does that mean ? Hermann Goering-
“I’ll decide who is a jew.”
What Judge Blow did to Sue Neill-Fraser- within the Hobart Mercury’s acceptable ideological positioning ? Or any critism might be imperilling to their advertiding revenue. Eight PHDs at Wannsee decided “within acceptable ideological positioning” to murder eleven million citizens .
Four juries to achieve the desired verdict to imposed on Robert Xie – four more if needed – yet still seen as within the acceptable middle of ideological positioning ! Acceptable to whom ? The majority of the typical Appeals Court judges ? Apologise- come off the grass – never apologise- doesn’t fit within a Judges acceptable ideological position. Me – myself – makes me choke on me Chablis !
Hermann Goering’s quip (“I’ll decide who is a jew’) comes from an anecdote (possibly true): junior officers were removing artworks from a large office Goering had commandeered. They were about to remove a handsome painting from behind what was to be his desk, he stopped them. One officer cried out, “But that painting is by a jew, Herr Reichsmarschall!” That was when Goering made that quip – in all seriousness.
Crikey Andrew – Wherever nothing factual exists to rely upon to judge whether or not a crime actually took place ? Another example. The correct verdict would have to be –
“Not Proven.” However, we must never forget – that in the many examples we have read – Wrongful conviction report . Appeals Court judges don’t give a stuff about facts- even those figments of scurrilous DPPs screenplays — repeated to a jury by the by the original boofhead – Spanners and screw drivers – frogs and snails and fairly tales – blood in your dinghy – and to hell with justice !
Sue’s first appeal: Ground 1 was that a Miscarriage of Justice occurred when at trial Justice Blow had rejected Gunson’s application to have Vass recalled to the stand. The recall application came in mid-trial after Dtv. Sinnitt’s Vass folder was disclosed and brought into court during Sinnitt’s evidence …
It revealed that contrary to where Vass had told the court in regard to where she was living at the time, she was actually living at a third (or fourth?) refuge – supposedly – but on the night in question was having a sleepover at Sam’s place … which was elsewhere … at an address which could not be found or did not exist.
Vass’s whereabouts on the night in question had never been established… yet her DNA was on the Four Winds yacht, the ‘murder scene’.
Yet Justice Blow wouldn’t let her be recalled and DPP Ellis who could have recalled her … declined to do so. He later (at the 1st Appeal) said in Court:
“In any event I would have made her available should they have wished the [recall], but I was never asked.
[CCA1 Transcript p71 15-17]
That assertion seems to have wobbly legs … After Mr Gunson had applied for Vass to be recalled, Mr Ellis himself had told the trial court that he was opposed to Vass being recalled and had then spoken against the application.
After the Appeal failed, there was a failed application to the High Court, then came the 2nd Appeal process.
We heard evidence from Vass that she was on the Four Winds and that ‘Sam did it’. (which was emblazoned the next morning on the front page of The Mercury) … her evidence, given on the understanding that it would not be published, exposed her to potential harm. Under Coates’ take-no-prisoners cross-examination, she took the say-anything-to-get-me-out-of-here approach and recanted.
In my opinion it was a travesty of justice, overseen by the Court of Criminal Appeal and by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now the Chief Justice, Alan Blow recently reviewed his career at an event in the NW of Tas. With regard to major cases over his working life, he ruled out making any comment on Neill-Fraser’s case. At first I thought that he didn’t want to open the door wider to more criticism from the public … but in retrospect I wonder that he himself sees that the matter is unresolved, that it may yet come again before the courts and that his commenting publicly – even now – could prejudice such a possible future proceeding.
Q Have we seen the end of the court-room efforts to exonerate Sue Neill-Fraser? A Maybe not?
Rosie Crumpto-Crook (President of Sue Neill-Fraser Support group) explains: “It was announced that the Sue Neill-Fraser case would not be discussed because Blow was the presiding judge. He then discussed other cases where he had been the judge! Tony Jacobs did try to ask a question about Sue’s case but was shut down.”
Hmmmm ….
Depends … on those driving the SNF EXONERATION BUS if we’ve seen the last of this matter.
Those supporters, who sit on critical reliable relevant evidence that could/would go we heavily towards another appeal aren’t going to be around forever. Having just undergone the a huge cull of decades of important-to-me documents, I’m not prepared to hold onto my SNF documents too much longer; they are occupying space I need for other current & moving-along matters in my life.
Seems the SNF exoneration is no longer open for sharing information, thus that is sending the message to those of us who have ‘hung in there’ to ‘shut up shop’ or ‘closed shop’.
My ‘closed’ sign will soon be on display as I prepare for the cull/bonfire.
Disappointingly, those of us with specific crucial evidence obtained independently and thru much independent diligence & effort will fade into the sunset, as we smell the bonfire smoke. Disturbing yet true.
Andrew – Off the record ! Can i ask ..why the paucity of printable and in some cases- interesting comments here ? How so ? One might think the subject – Presumption of Innocents – would cause a furious plonking of fingers -and smoke from some (many) ears ! Where have all the “Children Gone”? Collapsed into the fetal positions of hopeless despair ? Does this mean EVIL has prevailed ? Greed is good ! The CCRC idea has been smashed into silence .. Justice will now be served up to the masses by the Channel Ten Privy Court.
or the seemingly disgraced NSW ICAC.
(In some eyes)
It’s Presumption of Innocence….a small step for spelling … a giant leap for justice.
ANDREW – “A team of creative writers and journalists employed to synthesise” – to make something new !
The Higgins dream team ? I feel some money coming on – I feel better now ! That’s the ticket! Trouble is them lawyers seem to be getting more than half my moolah. That’s my moolah! Get ya cotton pickers out of my moolah entitlements. It sure looks like I’m being done over again by another group of opportunistic scoundrels . How about real truth – instead of synthetic truth ? (created by professional money makers – largely for their own benefit, it seems ? Michael Chamberlain died without even an apology . Darryl Beamish was lavished with a grudging pittance after 50 years – having been sentenced to death and then served 10 years in prison – tortured confession – rewritten many times and a career leg up for the dear policeman-Commissioner no less ! Then we were informed by the AttorneyGeneral 50 years later, there was no police misconduct. Obviously , tortured and totally fabricated (synthesised) confessions are considered – normal police procedure – the Queensland Police hot shots murdered Ray Bailey – synthesised confession and tortured his pregnant young wife ! 40 years for Derrick Bromley with South Australian flexible forensics. Synthesised and flexible forensic truth for Sue Neill-Fraser / Lindy Chamberlain and many other (Scott Austic) victims of the police second raters ! Contest a traffic ticket- they ( the piglets) lie their effing guts out . Good experience for the future and proof to their masters of their total lack of moral compass ! Commissioner Material. Would readers like a list of corrupt State and Federal Police Commissioners / David Eastman 19 years for that police synthesised mafia can of worms -the cream rises to the top, so does dogs vomit – as per the 50 to 60 year old (impossible to defend) money making (synthesised) allegations against Noel Greenaways ? Take a gander in that law firm car park – the stench of German leather.
Huston – we have a problem ! Monetary reward doesn’t automatically lead to the truthful telling of tales .A verdict of “Not Proven” should be available to a competent, properly trained, non stacked jury who then publicly explain and publish their decision. Rarely(probably never) a verdict available to politically selected Judges – also appeals courts should be free of judges with their many times proven halwitted lack of wisdom) After a 60 year hiatus – should there be a Statute of Limitations imposed at least for impossible to defend lawyer coached charges and convictions leading to big money rewards for Specialist Law firms. Is money , a reduction or removal of charges ever an incentive for “lying one’s guts out”- leading to the conviction of an innocent. I can answer that one – without any doubt and many times proven in Andrews wrongful Convictions Report . One has to know what Not Proven means . It means we don’t bloody know – and how could we bloody know – we can’t throw some one in jail when we don’t bloody know and worse still there is a monetary motive involved after 60 years of no complaint and now the shit hits the fan ! Why ? With a bit (a lot) of coaching there is a pretty penny to be made for all – even after 80 years –
An obvious correction needed – 50 to 60 years (not 20 to 30) after some event may or may not have occurred – doesn’t seem remotely like a fair go especially when there is no evidence except of the “he said – she said,” type together with large sums of money involved and the possible perversion that can cause . There are many examples. If 60 years ago is worth money , how about 70 to 80 years ago . It’s worth thinking about as a form of superannuation- ill go for the 90 years ago – a sure thing ?
Dear Andrew- Me thinks the halfwit idea that dobbing in a possibly innocent person for a fat cash reward twenty to thirty years after some event seems fraught . Easy money for lawyers and the sudden out of nowhere victim . In reverse- it took thirty years for the unscrupulous Legal Hot Shot Swine to admit- ” a dingoe took the baby “. Which means that the blood sprayed around in the Holden – scissoring of baby neck and clothing – was pure Londinium Codswollop. It’s quite likely that at least one of the claimants will eventually admit the truth – when the possibility of more filthy lucre fades. Flexible forensics and false abuse claims ( impossible to defend) keep Lawyers in their German Cars . Gain promotions for fabricating confession getting police ( Darryl Beamish,Ray Bailey) well done you men – lying on the ground wounded and firing with the best of them – Stacy Train ! Enough to make one PUKE !
In Dec 2020, Leonie Sheedy, the C0-Founder of Victims’ Advocate Group CLAN (https://clan.org.au/) commented on the amounts being offered by the NRS and said other forms of abuse should have been addressed by the Royal Commission:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/15/royal-commission-reflections-of-sexual-abuse-survivors
‘“That is a most insulting amount to give to children whose lives were shattered,” she said. “We’re not like the middle classes of this nation. We didn’t get an education. We don’t become the lawyers, the politicians, the doctors, the GPs, because of our limited education. The churches and charities exploited us and they wanted us to be farmhands and domestic slaves in wealthy peoples’ homes.”
Sheedy also says other forms of abuse, such as psychological and physical abuse, neglect and unpaid child labour, should have been addressed in the royal commission.
There’s a whole group of care leavers in Australian society who feel extremely ignored because they were not sexually abused but suffered all the other indignities,” she said.
However, the Explanatory Memorandum for the NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2018 includes the following:
– The survivor may also have suffered non-sexual abuse in connection with the child
sexual abuse, which could include physical abuse, psychological abuse and neglect.
Non-sexual abuse will be taken into consideration as an aggravating factor that
contributed to the severity of the sexual abuse suffered.
– Redress consists of three components: a redress payment of up to $150,000, a
counselling and psychological services component, which, depending on where the
person lives, consists of access to counselling and psychological services or a
payment of up to $5,000 and a direct personal response. Survivors will be able to
choose whether to accept one, two or all three of the components of redress
According to the RC website, after the RC was set up, the Australian Parliament amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) to create a process called a ‘private session’. Each private session was conducted by one or two Commissioners and was an opportunity for a person to tell their story of abuse in a protected and supportive environment. Written accounts allowed individuals who did not attend private sessions to share their experiences with Commissioners.
The following disclaimer appears next to each “Private Narrative” on the RC website:
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who spoke with a Commissioner during a private session of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Real names of individuals have not been used, except of public figures in a public context. The information the person provided was not evidence, the person was not a witness, and did not need to take an oath or affirmation, although they were expected to tell the truth. Nothing in this story is a finding of the Royal Commission and any views expressed are those of the person, not of the Commissioners.
The RC budget includes costs of all the capital city hotels booked for the “Private Sessions”.
Furthermore, in 2019 a grant of $234,000 2019 was awarded to a team at the University of Canberra by the Australian Research Council for a project entitled “Breaking Silences”(Discovery Project190101282) which looked at “the role of journalism and social media advocacy in triggering, reporting on, and keeping alive the recommendations of the ground breaking Royal Commission.” According to the report, the RCIRCSA’s engagement arm was well resourced and resourceful in reaching out to previously silenced communities including First Nations, disability, prisons and lesser known religious institutions. This group coordinated the private sessions and oversaw the Commission’s trauma-informed approach.” The report includes a photo of Tim Minchin performing “Come Home Cardinal Pell” and notes that the “song release brought together the most powerful contemporary news values of elites, celebrity and entertainment and fused them to the scandal news frame”. In relation to the “Private Sessions” we learn that “A team of creative writers and journalists was employed to synthesise and write up the de-identified testimony. Simply titled ‘Narratives’, this section of the RCRICSA Final Report captures 3,949 individual stories and provides some of the most compelling insights into the historical and contemporary experience of child sexual abuse in Australian institutions.”
NSW and its Police are provably by me a den of iniquity and gross incompetence in the execution of “DUTY”. It took one prejudiced,easily led female Cop whose name shall live in infamy, to utterly destroy the life of my Son. Her initials are M.B.
She knows who she is and continues to live with her criminal incompetence despite at my son’s 2nd Trial, being made aware by a
female Judge that my son’s Accuser was deemed ” An unreliable witness”…which by default meant she should not have simply been believed.
Mere ALLEGATION was permitted to be ” The Weapon of Mass Destuction” of my Son.
M.B. is a spineless specimen who knows that were she were to confront me in a Case Investigative Interview on National T.V. her career would be ended. Rot in hell M.B. karma has my trust for you to experience “Mass Destruction” of the kind you foisted on my family. Justice is a false belief in what is the Corrupt & Corruptible ” English Adversarial (IN)-Justice.System where words of evil win out wherever nothing factual exists to rely upon to judge whether or not a crime took place.