I have prepared a summary of the evidence given on the application for leave to appeal by Derek Bromley.
It relates to the psychological assessment of a witness described by the prosecution at the trial as ‘crucial’ to their case.
The evidence states that the witness’s evidence was inherently unreliable. He was acutely psychotic at the time the incident occurred.
Whilst this was known at the time of the trial, the expert evidence on this appeal states that the extent to which his evidence was unreliable could not have been fully understood then.
We now have a greater understanding of the cognitive deficits involved with the illness this witness was suffering from.
I have also provided 3 lectures relating to the various theories referred to in the evidence of Professor Coyle.
The summary and the lectures may be accessed from the Bromley Homepage: http://netk.net.au/BromleyHome.asp
In my view, this evidence (supported also by the Crown’s own expert) provides a more than adequate basis on which leave should be granted and indeed a sufficient basis upon which the substantive appeal should be allowed.
Further evidence will be led on the next hearing commencing 20 March to state that because the body of the deceased had been immersed in water for 5 days, the cause of death and the nature and timing of injuries could not be determined. It follows that the evidence of Dr Manock to the contrary at the trial was false and misleading.
This will be the third case in which it will be established that Dr Manock had given evidence in murder trials for which there was no scientific basis.
The appeal courts in R v Keogh (No 2) and in R v Van Beelen were the two previous cases.
Robert N Moles Networked Knowledge and Flinders University Miscarriages of Justice Project
