Author Archives: andrew

Appeals Are Not Enough: A System That Refuses to Learn

Posted on March 26, 2026 by andrew

The legal system resists correcting its mistakes; it avoids learning from them. This was a post responding to our recent article about the failures of appeals, from reader STEVEN FENNELL, whose personal experience informs his opinions. His observations are so pertinent … Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | Leave a comment

Judge errs, jury convicts, accused jailed, appeal lost, complaint dismissed

Posted on March 25, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  The judge whose summing up was convoluted and in places  incomprehensible even to lawyers, told the jury that the accused had “made admissions” of the offence –  which is not true – but as one barrister puts … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 06 'Paul' | Leave a comment

Q: What is ‘fresh’, looks old and is overlooked? A: you’d be surprised. Fact checking grounds for appeal with Dr Bob Moles.

Posted on March 24, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  In the wake of yesterday’s story about the legal system’s reluctant response to appeals, a significant misunderstanding about what constitutes ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence is explained by legal academic Dr Bob Moles. 

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Case 02 Henry Keogh, Case 05 Derek Bromley | 6 Comments

‘Case closed. Shut up and stop bothering us’ – the legal system’s response to appeals

Posted on March 23, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban Excuse my headline, but it’s a translation from legal language. Even among legal academics and former High Court justices, there is great unease about how our already imperfect legal system turns positively negative at the thought of … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 3 Comments

Exposed: antics of the faceless Tim Ellis support group

Posted on March 20, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  Less than a dozen in notional number*, less active and certainly less transparent than the Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group, but incessantly annoying, the group of commentators on this blog I have dubbed the Tim Ellis Support Group, … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 7 Comments

Selby v Ellis continued – how jury was misled in Sue Neill-Fraser murder trial

Posted on March 19, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban  Yesterday, we published a letter from former Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC in which he accused former barrister Hugh Selby of a failure of integrity in Selby’s article. Today, Selby replies, to emphasise how the jury was … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 13 Comments

Former Sue Neill-Fraser prosecutor Tim Ellis SC takes issue with former barrister Hugh Selby’s latest article

Posted on March 18, 2026 by andrew

Former Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis SC was the prosecutor in the now infamous 2010 Sue Neill-Fraser murder trial. In a letter to wrongfulconvictionsreport.org, he accuses Hugh Selby’s March 16, 2026 article of “sadly lacking in the integrity he constantly accuses … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 29 Comments

Non-disclosures in Sue Neill-Fraser case mean no valid conviction

Posted on March 16, 2026 by andrew

In what can be seen as a companion piece to our article, Duty of disclosure lasts forever by Bibi Sangha and Dr Bob Moles, former barrister HUGH SELBY explains why the police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 10 Comments

When directors of public prosecutions aren’t accountable

Posted on March 9, 2026 by andrew

“There is no good reason in 2026 to allow directors of public prosecutions to be less accountable than anyone else for their conduct and their decisions. The present ‘non-accountability’ brings our criminal justice system into disrepute” writes former barrister HUGH SELBY in … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, General articles | Leave a comment

Forensic science services in crisis – loyalty to courts or police?

Posted on February 28, 2026 by andrew

Forensic science services, at the heart of many trials, are under the microscope like never before. Last month, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee published a report concerned about lack of labs’ independence from police. On March 4, … Continue reading →

Posted in Forensic evidence | 7 Comments