Category Archives: Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser

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 | 7 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 | 32 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

Briefings for Tasmanian MPs on debate re Sue Neill-Fraser inquiry  

Posted on February 25, 2026 by andrew

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 … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 3 Comments

“one of the most dangerous convictions” to be debated in Tasmanian Legislative Council

Posted on February 11, 2026 by andrew

Tasmania’s Legislative Council will debate a call on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry into and report on the correctness of the conviction of Susan Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell – “arguably one of Australia’s most … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 15 Comments

‘Rotten to its core’: No saying sorry in Tasmanian justice

Posted on January 30, 2026 by andrew

“A woman was convicted of murder on false evidence. She spent 13 years in prison. Her family has suffered. Both trial and appellate courts have been duped.” HUGH SELBY looks for contrition in the Tasmanian judicial system and finds none. (from CBR … Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 7 Comments