Just days before the August 31 Supreme Court hearing a challenge by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) to an extra bail restriction imposed on Sue Neill-Fraser in April 2025 preventing her claiming her innocence, the Tasmanian Parole Board has removed that condition.
“This is great news and heartfelt thanks go to Sue’s stellar legal team who have worked tirelessly on this for many months,” says Rosie Crumpton-Crook, President of the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group.
The Tasmanian Parole Board will be asked on what grounds it imposed this unlawful condition, why it removed it many months after the restriction was first challenged by the HRLC only on the eve of the Supreme Court hearing and whether the restriction was imposed at the request of any outside party.
The HRLC has issued the following media release.
Media Release
Human Rights Law Centre | For immediate release: Tuesday 25 August 2026
Tasmanian Parole Board removes condition restricting Susan Neill-Fraser’s speech
Following a legal challenge by the Human Rights Law Centre, the Tasmanian Parole Board has today removed a parole condition which sought to prevent Tasmanian grandmother, Susan Neill-Fraser, from speaking to third parties, including media, about her claimed innocence or wrongful conviction.
The Centre’s challenge, filed in April 2025 in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, argues that this condition preventing Susan from speaking to the media and third parties is unreasonable, improper and in breach of the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication.
The Human Rights Law Centre welcomes this decision, which restores Susan’s ability to exercise her rights to freedom of expression and participate in public debate.
Parole is intended to support people to reintegrate into the community after time spent in prison. The Human Rights Law Centre remains concerned by the largely unchecked powers of parole boards throughout the country which impose restrictive parole conditions that prevent people’s full participation in the community. Restrictive parole conditions have a disproportionate impact on already marginalised groups who are overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
The case will return to the Supreme Court of Tasmania on Monday 31 August at 10am.
Quotes attributable to Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre:
“This decision is an important vindication of Susan’s rights, which we have fought to protect for more than a year. We welcome the decision of the Parole Board of Tasmania to remove this condition. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and we are pleased that Susan is no longer subject to a restriction that prevented her from being able to participate in public debate.”
“The right to speak out and participate in public debate is foundational to a healthy democracy. People who have experienced incarceration are often among the most important voices in discussions about the criminal legal system and protecting their ability to speak out and advocate for change is an important safeguard against injustice.”
“We are concerned by the largely unchecked powers of parole boards across the country to impose restrictive conditions that limit people’s fundamental freedoms and full participation in the community. Parole is meant to be about supporting reintegration, not silencing people or excluding them from public debate.”
Background
Susan Neill-Fraser served 13 years in prison and has been on parole since 2022.
In December 2024, the Tasmanian Parole Board placed a condition on Susan’s parole which prohibited her from communicating “directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim [her] alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction”.
In May 2025, this condition was replaced with a condition which prohibits her from communicating “directly or indirectly – including through third parties, written statements, electronic communications, social media platforms, television, radio, podcasts, streaming services, online video-sharing platforms, or any other public or broadcast media – to assert claims regarding your alleged innocence, wrongful conviction, or dispute the legitimacy of your conviction or sentencing”.