The Federal Attorney-General has today announced the setting up of an inquiry into Indigenous incarceration rates. We would like to point out that Derek Bromley has now been kept in prison for 33 years for a crime for which he was wrongly convicted.

Networked Knowledge welcomes the announcement today (Thurs) by the Federal Attorney-General
that the Australian Law Reform Commission will conduct an inquiry into the
incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians. The Australia Bar association has described
the current figures as a “national disgrace”.

In this context it is important to note that Mr Derek Bromley, an aboriginal man in South
Australia, is still in prison having served some 33 years. He is more than 10 years past his
non-parole period of 22 years. He is told that he cannot apply for parole because he will
not say that he is sorry for the crime for which he was convicted. Being innocent of this
crime he maintains that an apology would be inappropriate.

The cost of his incarceration over the last ten years is in excess of $800,000.
If he had been guilty he would have been sent home 10 years ago.

His claim to be wrongfully convicted is well-founded. The forensic evidence was given at
his trial by Dr Colin Manock. The state of South Australia in 1976 gave sworn evidence
to a court to the effect that Dr Manock was not qualified to complete an autopsy on his
own. The state also said he was not qualified as an expert – which means that he was not
entitled to give expert opinion evidence in any court proceedings. Even if his evidence
had been correct (which it wasn’t) it would still have been inadmissible.

In addition, it was acknowledged in Mr Bromley’s previous appeal that one of the eyewitnesses
at Mr Bromley’s trial was suffering from a mental condition and was
experiencing hallucinations on the night of the incident. There is a strong argument to sya
that his evidence also should have been inadmissible.

Mr Bromley is pursuing an application for leave to appeal under the new statutory right
of appeal which is now available in South Australia.

The ethical response to that would be for the Crown to concede that appealable error has
occurred and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the conviction is set aside and that
Mr Bromley is released from custody.

Information concerning the institutional errors which have occurred in relation to Dr
Manock’s work may be found in the article recently published by the Flinders University
Law Journal available at http://netk.net.au/SA/SA15.pdf

Information in relation to Mr Bromley’s case may be found at the Networked Knowledge
page: http://netk.net.au/BromleyHome.asp
Robert N Moles Networked Knowledge and Flinders University Miscarriages of Justice Project Web: http://netk.net.au