Andrew L. Urban
Members of Tasmania’s Legislative Council will soon debate a motion to support an independent inquiry into and report on the safety or otherwise of Sue Neill-Fraser’s 2010 murder conviction. Drawing on years of chronicling the history of this case, we are pleased to assist all Members and MLCs with briefings to enable them to make informed decisions about this extraordinary case.
Some MPs are evidently (and vocally) confronted by the constant agitation for a review by supporters of Sue Neill-Fraser. Good. Do something about it. The agitation has been going on since the 2010 trial, the best part of 16 years; it will not cease. Vote to do the right thing and convince the Attorney-General to establish an inquiry.
(Our first report on this case was published on August 15, 2013.)
The following Briefings were sent to all Tasmanian MPs and MLCs between February 16 and 25, 2026.
BRIEFING No 1
The establishment of an independent review by the Attorney-General would not constitute political interference (as claimed by former A-G Elise Archer, who contradicted that view by her own actions when on May 4, 2023, she intervened to direct the coroner to hold an inquest into the death of Jari Wise.)
Rather, it would demonstrate respect for justice. Asking a question is not to be confused with directing an answer.
FULL STORY https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/11/18/no-valid-reasons-to-dismiss-calls-for-an-independent-review-of-the-sue-neill-fraser-case/
BRIEFING No 2
After two appeals – and the refusal of the High Court to hear her appeal – there are many issues that remain appealable that have not been argued in court, as outlined by former Tasmanian prosecutor Tony Jacobs, Flinders University legal academic Dr Bob Moles. Additional failings in the case are outlined in reports tabled in Parliament by Barbara Etter APM and former barrister Hugh Selby.
FULL STORY https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2022/11/18/why-the-courts-have-not-silenced-the-uproar-over-sue-neill-fraser-case/
It is also worth remembering Justice Estcourt’s dissenting opinion at Sue Neill-Fraser’s second appeal (November 2021): I would uphold the appeal and quash the appellant’s conviction for murder.
The petition calling for an independent judicial review of her case has been signed by nearly 40,000 people (as at January 2026).
BRIEFING No 3
After three books, a TV documentary, a full length feature doco and a podcast series challenging the conviction, media support for an inquiry was manifest in an editorial in the Hobart Mercury. The Mercury’s editorial responded to the 2025 Etter Selby Report (tabled in Parliament) as follows: “A mixture of new science and uncovered evidence could once again shake the foundations of one of Tasmania’s most divisive criminal cases and many would argue it deserves the full weight of independent scrutiny. If credible scientific or evidentiary developments cast real doubt on a conviction, those developments must be examined – no matter how much time has passed or how uncomfortable the process may be. Tasmania’s justice system prides itself on fairness and transparency. Both will be tested by how authorities respond to this latest evidence.”
FULL STORY https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/11/13/failure-to-investigate-and-properly-disclose-information-why/
BRIEFING No 4
Dr Robert N. Moles, former Associate Professor of Law, is the author of Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice, (Irwin Law, Toronto, 2010): “In the book, I set out the law on miscarriages of justice in Australia. I can say with confidence that the conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser does not comply with the Australian law on this topic.”
Dr Moles says: “Special legal rules apply to circumstantial evidence cases such as this. The law says that the guilt of the accused must be the only rational explanation consistent with the evidence. This case begs to have … an independent review of it to ensure the manifest failures in its investigation and prosecution are authoritatively determined.”
FULL STORY https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2013/08/15/another-lindy-chamberlain-miscarriage-of-justice/
BRIEFING No 5
Extracts from trial judge Blow’s sentencing remarks, showing he was unjustifiably “satisfied” on a number of issues simply on the prosecutor’s say-so:
Blow: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Neill-Fraser attacked Mr Chappell
Urban: On what evidence? None was produced in court. No weapon. No body. No Witness.
Blow: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Neill-Fraser used the ropes and winches on the yacht to lift Mr Chappell’s body onto the deck; that she manoeuvred his body into the yacht’s tender; that she attached an old-fashioned fire extinguisher weighing about 14 kilograms to his body; that she travelled away from the Four Winds in the tender with the body for some distance; and that she dumped the body in deep water somewhere in the river.
Urban: On what evidence? None was produced in court.
Blow: … the scientific examination of the tender, DNA matching of samples from the blood on the yacht and Luminol positive areas of the tender with Mr Chappell’s DNA
Urban: This is either a confused or a misleading statement, despite the words ‘scientific examination’: a) the presumptive (preliminary) luminol test was positive, but the confirmatory test proved there was no blood in the dinghy – not Chappell’s nor anyone else’s; b) Chappell’s DNA being present on his own dinghy is not proof that Neill-Fraser put his body in it.
FULL STORY https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2014/01/11/sue-neill-fraser-the-sentencing-blow-by-blow/
ADDENDUM
Tasmanian Parole Board’s condition on Sue Neill-Fraser unlawful
Claims of wrongful conviction are core political communication. While prisoners’ rights can be restricted, the High Court has never held that parolees lose the implied freedom altogether.
