Andrew L. Urban
You won’t be surprised that the Tasmanian Government is continuing to stonewall on the calls for an inquiry into the Sue Neill-Fraser case, firmly keeping a blind eye on the mountain of reasons in favour of one. The latest exhibition of this happened in the Legislative Council in the evening of Tuesday, December 2, 2025, when the latest Etter Selby report was tabled by Michael Gaffney (Ind, Mersey). And then that mysterious phone call …
Not surprised…but maybe outraged all over again? The main speakers were Mike Gaffney (Independent), Meg Webb (Independent) and Tania Rattray (the leader of Government business). Rattray noted that the matter had been subject to court proceedings and stated “with the greatest of respect” there was no need for an inquiry. You can’t blame Rattray, she is just the mouthpiece for the Government position, mouthing an unsupportable statement. Why do Tasmanians tolerate this? The volume of material challenging this conviction is large, credible and evidence based. Our latest report, Dec. 2, 2025, presents four grounds supporting a pleading of fraud on the court, never before considered by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, capable of overturning the conviction immediately.
This has been going on for so long (the trial was in 2010, the first appeal in 2011) that Tasmanians themselves now bear responsibility for putting up with the failure of their politicians (with notable exceptions) to support the rule of law. Respect and adherence to the rule of law, from police to prosecutors and judges, has failed in this case (as it has in the case of Marco Rusterholz). From penal colony to police state, Has Tasmania evolved from cruel to corrupt? You, Tasmanians, are the only ones who can exert the pressure necessary to cleanse your state of the stench on injustice.
Speaking to the Legislative Council in the wake of tabling the Etter Selby report Mark 2, Gaffney said “There are serious questions about the quality and oversight of the police investigation, the independence of Tasmanian Police Forensic Scientists Services, known as FSST, the handling of the disclosure to the courts by both police and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, and the lack of proper management of and support for Ms Meaghan Vass after she made sworn statements to have been on the yacht.”
On page 8 of the 17 page Hansard record, Gaffney says “Let me turn to some additional new matters that cause concern in the handling of scientific evidence, in this case, especially with the respect to an apparent lack of accountability and transparency. A small blue towel was found on the deck of the yacht near the Meaghan Vass DNA. The item, which we know still exists, was not mentioned in the 2009 major forensic biology report, an omission still not explained despite RTI and correspondence by Robert Richter KC to the DPP Commissioner of Police and the Director of FSST. We know it was in the DNA lab in early February 2009, from disclosed records. Despite numerous requests in recent years, police are still refusing to allow an independent expert to review relevant FSST records or organise independent testing of that towel – why?”
In the end, Gaffney said “the government needed to pursue two responses. The first and most urgent is facilitating a further leave to appeal by Ms Neill-Fraser. The second is an appropriately resourced and empowered inquisitorial inquiry to get the bottom of what, on the face of it, seems to be too many problems with the investigation, the forensics, the prosecution and the appeals. Appropriate independent expert opinion is needed in that regard.”
Also speaking to the motion was Meg Webb (Ind. Nelson). She told the Council “The case for an in-depth examination of this conviction is now overwhelming, particularly so when there are persons of interest and known associates of Meaghan Vass who, it would appear, were never properly investigated despite apparent police knowledge of their involvement in boat crimes. Why weren’t such associations disclosed to the court? The long list of apparent nondisclosures in this case is frightening, including the issue of the search for the supposedly missing fire extinguisher from the Four Winds at the home of a well known boat thief, only a couple of weeks after Mr Chappell’s disappearance, and information obtained in recent years under RTI about the surrounding circumstances.
“If it isn’t bad enough that our mortuary/autopsy services are not accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), additionally Tasmania Police is the only police agency in Australia to not have its police forensic services, including crime scene investigations, tool marks, ballistics, et cetera, accredited with NATA. FSST also only has basic NATA accreditation and is not accredited by the Australian Forensic Standards.
“Tasmania’s limited forensic services accreditation does little to assist in restoring public confidence in our criminal justice and judicial system.”
Gaffney’s Motion “Calls on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to enquire into and report on the correctness of the conviction of Susan Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell.”
The motion will be debated in March 2026.
The phone call
Gaffney then revealed a mysterious phone call in which he was told the name of Bob Chappell’s killer.
“I should also comment the last time I raised the Selby issue some years ago, I arrived home that night after being here presenting. I usually don't answer phone calls that are private or unknown, but I did. I had a pen and paper there. I had this voice, and the voice said to me, ‘Are you that Gaffney fella?’ and I said, ‘Yes, that’s me; he said, ‘Are you the one who’s just done this Sue Neill-Fraser thing at that parliament?’, I said ‘Yes’; and he said ‘Well, I’ve got something I need to tell you’; and he gave the name of a person who he said his girlfriend had known was the killer of Bob Chappell. My response, and I’ve not mentioned this to anybody else, but I think this is how important I believe this is to be – I rang the commissioner who was Darren Hine at the time and I said, ‘This is the phone call, this is what I’ve received, do I do? and he said somebody will ring you within five minutes and that happened.
“I feel that is important information because that name was given to me and the police were aware of that name.” And that was that ….
“In closing, it is telling that in the near three weeks since I tabled the Etter/Selby report that there has been science from the police and the ODPP. It is telling not only because they may have no answer, it is also telling because being able to own up to a mistake is one of the hardest things to do. Rather than belatedly joining in a quest for truth and justice, the latest example of bunkering down is the police RTI response last week to the member Meg Webb, refusing to disclose the full exchange of Dr Duncan Taylor, of Forensics South Australia that predates the 2021 appeal. In the face of such determined intransigence and a commitment to keeping the lid on, there’s only one solution I believe, a wide-ranging powerful commission of inquiry so that this matter can be fully resolved. “
But given the history, it would not surprise if even a credible confession to the murder would jolt Tasmania’s legal system into action to exonerate Neill-Fraser.