The sixth Red Herring Certificate goes to … Judge Nicole Noman SC

Posted on October 25, 2025 by andrew

So much is wrong with Nicole Noman’s judgement in the 2017 historical sexual abuse accusations trial of Frank Valentine, (the appeal document listed over 500 points) I present only a representative few that stand out as worthy of this Certificate. Adding to the debacle, three judges dismissed the appeal entirely. They will be considered next …  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 26 Frank Valentine | 1 Comment

The fifth Red Herring Certificate goes to … Justice Elizabeth Fullerton

Posted on October 24, 2025 by andrew

In 2016, at the fourth and final multiple-murder trial of Robert Xie, Justice Fullerton was directly offered at least one chance to ensure a fair trial. She refused. She also erred in some of her directions to the jury.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | 7 Comments

The fourth Red Herring Certificate goes jointly to … Mark Tedeschi KC & Tanya Smith

Posted on October 23, 2025 by andrew

The headlines have gone but a lifetime jail sentence remains for Robert Xie for the 2009 murder of the Lin family. (Three adults and his two young nephews.) Xie was convicted without any real evidence. The case was fashioned in the DPP’s office out of unreliable circumstantial material. Hard to believe? Prove me wrong. Continue reading →

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie | Leave a comment

The third Red Herring Certificate goes jointly to … Justices Wood & Pearce

Posted on October 22, 2025 by andrew

The second appeal against her 2010 (wrongful) conviction and 23 year sentence for the 2009 murder of her partner Bob Chappel by Sue Neill-Fraser was heard in March 2021. Wood J and Pearce J voted to dismiss the appeal while Estcourt J wrote a strongly dissenting opinion favouring the appeal and for quashing the verdict.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 5 Comments

The second Red Herring Certificate goes to … Alan Blow (CJ rtd)

Posted on October 21, 2025 by andrew

The Red Herring Certificate identifies prosecutors and judges who, in our sincere opinion supported by evidence, have helped bring about wrongful convictions. The Inaugural Red Herring Certificate went to Tim Ellis SC, the former Tasmanian DPP whose 2010 prosecution (speculation?) of Sue Neill-Fraser for the murder of Bob Chappell led to what is widely regarded as a wrongful conviction. He called every element that didn’t fit his narrative a red herring. And he had help: trial judge Alan Blow …  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 7 Comments

The Inaugural Red Herring Certificate goes to … Tim Ellis SC

Posted on October 20, 2025 by andrew

The Red Herring Certificate identifies prosecutors and judges who, in our sincere opinion supported by evidence, have helped bring about wrongful convictions.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 5 Comments

Tendency evidence risks unfair trials, eg Frank Valentine

Posted on October 8, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Arguably the most insidious area of the criminal law in Australia is the application of Tendency & Coincidence evidence, a constant threat to fair trial protections.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 26 Frank Valentine | 3 Comments

Note to detective: tunnel vision is unwarranted certainty

Posted on October 6, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

The trouble with certainty without good evidence in crime investigation is that it easily leads to a wrongful conviction. We have reported on several cases to show this. One former detective has now claimed his ‘certainty’ should prevail; it isn’t enough.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 22 Noel Greenaway, Case 26 Frank Valentine | 3 Comments

Reforms to make convictions safe(er)

Posted on October 5, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Too many unsafe convictions have put innocents behind bars. Our deformed criminal justice system must be reformed. Following on from our most recent posts examining various ongoing flaws and weaknesses in Australia’s criminal justice system (see * below) – and those who profess to serve it – we are dismayed to report that neither law reform commissions nor political parties have any plans or policies to address reforms in needed areas. And what are those areas?  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 02 Henry Keogh, Case 17 Kathleen Folbigg, General articles | 5 Comments

To correct atrocities of the law relieve politicians of the burden

Posted on October 4, 2025 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Advocating for a review of what is arguably a wrongful murder conviction doesn’t make you soft on murder. Likewise, advocating for a review of what is arguably a wrongful sexual assault conviction doesn’t mean you support sexual abuse. These basic truths have to be reiterated in today’s supercharged & off balance atmosphere about sexual abuse crimes in particular. Reviewing both categories of crime are resisted by large sections of the legal profession. The latter is resisted by large sections of the public and all politicians. Why it matters goes to the centre of a conflict between the separation of powers and the pursuit of justice.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 06 'Paul' | 7 Comments