Jury secrecy shields wrongful convictions; should juries be recorded?

Posted on March 28, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

Recorded and with availability restricted to relevant judges, jury deliberations hold the key to many wrongful convictions.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 11 Robert Xie, General articles | 8 Comments

Judges and the law not acting rationally

Posted on March 27, 2026 by andrew

Andrew L. Urban

The High Court’s decision last week, known as EGH19, is the latest in a string of defeats for the government over its attempts to protect the community from foreign criminals who are in this country unlawfully. The ruling in EGH19 struck down the latest regulation imposing ankle bracelets and curfews. But the seven judges produced six separate judgments that ran to 153 pages, including the two dissents.  Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 4 Comments

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 we are republishing his comment as a stand alone article to ensure wide readership. Continue reading →

Posted in General articles | 4 Comments

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 it, “the jury had NO CHOICE but to find him guilty“.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 06 'Paul' | 2 Comments

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.  Continue reading →

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 being questioned. Why else make appeals nigh-impossible? The system prefers the legal certainty of finality to substantive justice by correcting wrongful convictions.  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, uses innuendo and obfuscation to support former DPP Tim Ellis in prosecuting Sue Neill-Fraser for murder, a conviction we (and thousands of others) consider egregiously wrongful.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 9 Comments

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, 2026, in Melbourne this year, an expert panel discussion will explore the apparent wrongful conviction of Stephen ‘Shorty’ Jamieson for rape and murder, driven off course by old school verballing, made possible by ignorance of linguistic forensic science. In a December 2025 Science Direct article, Aaron Olson (Truth, power, and the crisis of forensic independence) paints a picture of forensic independence in crisis. See extracts below.  Continue reading →

Posted in Forensic evidence | 8 Comments

“You’ve got the wrong Shorty!”

Posted on February 27, 2026 by andrew

The case of Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson and insights into the legal misconceptions that cause transcript injustice in forensic contexts. How the flaws live on, despite the reforms of the 1990s, writes HELEN FRASER, Director of the Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence at the University of Melbourne. Continue reading →

Posted in Case 28 Stephen Shorty Jamieson, Forensic evidence | 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 this case, we are pleased to assist all Members and MLCs with briefings to enable them to make informed decisions about this extraordinary case.  Continue reading →

Posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser | 3 Comments