STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN JOHN GLEESON 6 JUNE 2018
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE MARSHALL AJ
Mr Gleeson, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of perverting the course of justice. The background to your offending is as follows. Between 26 and 27 January 2009, Mr Robert Chappell was murdered on a yacht which was moored off Short Beach in Sandy Bay. In 2010 Ms Susan Neill-Fraser was convicted of his murder. In 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Ms Neil-Fraser’s appeal against her conviction, and the High Court refused special leave to appeal.
In 2015, Ms Neill-Fraser filed an application seeking leave to lodge a second appeal. A significant issue at the trial in 2009 concerned the presence of DNA on the yacht from a homeless 15-year old girl. Ms Neill-Fraser’s counsel raised the possibility that the girl had been on the yacht, and so the jury should have a reasonable doubt about Ms Neill-Fraser’s guilt. Ms Neill-Fraser’s legal team was shown a report from Tasmania Police that suggested that in January 2009, the girl was associating with a 16 year-old boy.
In January 2009, you were living in your car near the rowing sheds beside Short Beach. On a number of occasions you had spoken to Ms Neill-Fraser and Mr Chappell and helped them launch and retrieve their dinghy. In late January 2009 you spoke to the police and told them that you were heavily intoxicated on 26 January, and spent most of the day and evening in your vehicle sleeping. In September 2014 you were arrested in relation to a crime of violence and have been in custody at Risdon Prison since 2014. When arrested, you brought up the murder of Mr Chappell and said you were asleep in your car on 26 January 2009, and regretted being asleep because, if you were awake, you would have been able to see what had happened.
Between July 2016 and September 2017, you were visited in prison on 14 occasions by various people in connection with the Chappell murder. At the time Ms Barbara Etter was Ms Neill-Fraser’s solicitor. You were visited by her and by a Mr Geoffrey Thompson. Mr Thompson is a solicitor with a practising certificate which allows him only to act for clients at a community legal centre. At the time he did volunteer work for Ms Etter.
On 13 September 2016 Ms Etter took an affidavit from you in which you confirmed your earlier statements that you were intoxicated on the night of 26 January 2009, and slept in your car on your own. You did not state that you had seen any people that night, or that anyone was in the car with you.
On 8 May 2017 Mr Thompson took a second affidavit from you, although at the time he had been told by Ms Etter he was not authorised by her to work on the Neill-Fraser case. In your 8 May 2017 affidavit, you said, for the first time, that on 26 January 2009 you were woken up by someone tapping on the window of your car. You said the two people were Adam Yaxley and a girl. You said you let them in your car and cooked them sausages on your gas cooker. You said Mr Yaxley and the girl had talked about breaking into yachts to steal things. You got back into your car, you said, and went to sleep. In your affidavit you said that Mr Thompson showed you a photo array, and that you signed the picture which you recognised to be of the girl. You signed your name next to a photograph of the girl. A photoboard containing eight photographs was annexed to your affidavit. Your affidavit and the photoboard were provided to the Crown and filed in support of Ms Neill-Fraser’s application to lodge a second appeal.
Police received information that Mr Thompson was planning to visit you again to show you a photoboard to identify the person who was in your car with the girl. You had previously stated that the male in the car was Mr Yaxley, but it was the belief of those working with Ms Neill-Fraser that if you identified the 16-year old boy, that evidence would be compelling evidence on the application for her to lodge a second appeal. Police obtained a warrant and installed a camera and listening device to record the planned identification procedure.
On 16 June 2017 Mr Thompson visited you. He showed you two photoboards, each containing eight photographs including of the 16-year old boy. The first photoboard showed a recent photograph of the boy, while the second showed an older photograph of him. You were not shown any photographs of Mr Yaxley. You believed you were going to be shown photographs of Mr Yaxley so that you could identify him. Mr Thompson placed the first photoboard in front of you. You initially did not identify any of the photographs. You were then shown a second photoboard containing photographs from 2009. You failed to identify anyone again. Then, Mr Thompson pointed to the 16-year old boy’s photograph on both boards. You then pointed to the photograph of the boy on the first photoboard and, comparing it to the photograph of the boy on the second board, you said, “This one looks more like him than that one.” Mr Thompson asked you to sign over the photograph of the boy in the first photoboard, which you did. You did not identify the boy in the second photoboard, but Mr Thompson pointed to that photograph and said, “That was him there anyway.” You replied, “Was it? I could recognise him for the purpose of getting her out.” Mr Thompson declined your offer.
You told police you thought Mr Paul Wroe was involved in the murder of Mr Chappell, and that you believed an affidavit was being prepared for you to put to the Court concerning his involvement in the murder. You told police that, in your discussions with Mr Thompson, you believed your purpose was to identify Mr Yaxley. The photoboard identification of the 15-year old girl and the 16-year old boy was important evidence in support of Ms Neill-Fraser’s application for leave to lodge a second appeal. Your identification evidence is the only direct evidence that places the girl near the crime scene on the night of the murder.
On 30 October 2017 you gave evidence before his Honour Brett J on Ms Neill-Fraser’s application to file a second appeal. You identified the girl on the photoboard you had been shown by Mr Thompson. Under cross-examination you admitted identifying the 16-year old boy when you could not recognise him as the male who was in your car on the night of Australia Day 2009. You admitted that you identified the 16-year old boy and the girl because Mr Thompson had pointed to their photographs.
Your offending is extremely serious.
You made a false identification for the purpose of seeking a retrial for Ms Neill-Fraser. You falsely and dishonestly identified a photograph of the 16-year old boy as being a photograph of a person present near Short Beach on the night of 26 January 2009, or early in the morning of 27 January 2009. The Crown concedes that you were duped by Mr Thompson and you were vulnerable to suggestions by him. You have expressed remorse for your actions. You said you made a stupid mistake and you were tricked into doing it, having been under a lot of pressure at the time. You are entitled to the benefit on sentence that is obtained by guilty pleas. I also take into account that your offending was the result of pressure by others. You are currently serving a custodial sentence for committing an unlawful act intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Your earliest release date is 30 November 2019. You are eligible for parole, but have not applied.
You are now 59 years old. A pre-sentence report prepared in relation to your matter by a probation officer recommended that a psychiatric assessment be obtained before a probation order is made. Such a psychiatric assessment has now been made. The report stated that you have had previous contact with mental health services in the Hobart region, but none since 2010. Resort to antipsychotic drugs did not prove successful. You have received no antipsychotic medication since 2010. The report showed that you have a long history of problems with alcohol up to your incarceration in 2014. The report confirms your belief that you were duped into identifying individuals or making statements that certain individuals were with you on Australia Day 2009. The report also states that you had previously been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, which was later changed to a diagnosis of delusional disorder. This appears to be consistent with your view that you are an ASIO operative. However the report states that this disorder does not explain your more recent offending. It states that the use of antipsychotics is likely to be unsuccessful and would be resisted by you. The report recommends a probation order and referral by the probation service to the Community Forensic Mental Health Service for psychological and psychiatric review. However I consider your offending to be sufficiently serious as to justify a custodial sentence.
The crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice strikes at the wellbeing of society, and has a tendency to subvert our system of justice. General deterrence demands that a custodial sentence be imposed. You have significant prior convictions which demonstrate a lack of respect for the law.
I convict you on each charge and sentence you to 12 months’ imprisonment. Six months of that term is to be served concurrently with the sentence you are now serving, and the balance is to be cumulative. You are eligible to apply for parole after serving six months of this new sentence. You are sentenced, as mentioned, in respect of the two charges before the Court. The first relates to the false identification of the 16-year old boy. The second concerns willingly providing false evidence in your affidavit of 8 May 2017.
John Biggs
June 6, 2018 at 13:28
With a “friend ” like this …
Poor chump thought he was helping Neill-Fraser, but he is only making it worse for her appeal. However, this should NOT prejudice her case as she didn’t ask for Gleason’s “help” – nor did Etter for that matter.
William Boeder
June 6, 2018 at 14:22
I wonder if similar charges might be lodged against those providing false testimony “against the persons claiming their false positive evidence” in this same case.
john hayward
June 6, 2018 at 14:25
Who submitted the transcript of this sentencing to TT?
Tassie justice seems to be a lot more punctilious in dealing with such as Gleason than it was with John Gay or with the insiders who made the compensation for nearly 78,000 ha of State Forest plantation disappear.
This display of judicial vigour however, doesn’t provide any semblance of proof beyond reasonable doubt that Neill-Fraser murdered her husband, as was argued by prosecutor Tim Ellis and accepted by Judge Alan Blow.
John Hayward
William Boeder
June 6, 2018 at 15:14
#3 … Yes John, the same judicial vigour could be said to apply to a number of this state’s Supreme Court Hearings on matters of deceased estates, where it is possible to deduce that invariably this court hands down its decisions in favour of Tasmania’s Public Trustees.
If one were a gambling man, money could be gained quite easily considering the history of the decisions handed down in relation to open estates and deceased estates.
TV Resident
June 6, 2018 at 15:52
I still don’t understand how anyone can be charged with murder when there is no body, no weapon and no motive.
The only thing that the courts went on, in my mind, was the vivid imaginations of the judge and the prosecutor that were put to the jurors in a convincing manner. WHERE IS THE PROOF BEYOND DOUBT?
TGC
June 7, 2018 at 00:03
So #6 … the jurors were gullible?
Brian
June 7, 2018 at 02:46
So John #3, it was “argued by prosecutor Tim Ellis and accepted by Judge Alan Blow”?
I would have thought it was accepted by a jury of her peers. The judge does not get to accept or otherwise. The Jury convicted her, and after listening to all the arguments and counters, it made its decision.
John Biggs
June 7, 2018 at 14:00
#8 … “The judge does not get to accept or otherwise.”
No? Read his summing up to the jury.
[email protected]
June 7, 2018 at 15:01
As one who has followed this case quite closely since the publication by Tasmanian Times of the Neill-Fraser trial transcript, I would like to make the following comments:
– Some of Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks are, in my opinion, poorly constructed. For example, it seems Gleeson was shown two photoboards which each included 8 photos and on each of the two photoboards was 1 photo (amongst 8) of a boy who at some stage was 16 years old. The context suggests that this 16 year old boy was Adam Yaxley, yet Justice Marshall follows with the remark that “You were not shown any photographs of Mr Yaxley.â€.
– On the face of it, Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks, in my opinion, contain if not error, then perhaps some measure of legal obfuscation. For example, the Judge states that “Your identification evidence is the only direct evidence that places the girl near the crime scene on the night of the murder.†Yet I refer to the evidence of Brent Brocklehurst (30Oct2017, Neill-Fraser 2nd appeal application hearing) who identified the young girl seen in the company of three men. One of these three men was Mr Brocklehurst’s then neighbour, Simon Partigeter, who told Mr Brocklehurst that he had encountered the girl and two men while walking his dog on Short Beach. Brocklehurst’s evidence was that Pargiter had told him that the three had “come out of nowhere on a dinghyâ€. Brocklehurst on two occasions (once to Barbara Etter’s lawyers and once in court) had identified and in court placed his initials next to one of the photos shown to him. The encounter took place on the evening of 26Jan2009. The place was Short Beach, off from which was moored the Four Winds. The group, according to Brocklehurst via Pargiter, had then walked along Marieville Esplanade, turned the corner into Margaret Street (on which corner fence the ‘red jacket’ was found the next morning), continued up to where Margaret street ‘does a leftie’ and took a short cut through the bowling club. Brocklehurst told the court that the group then sounded like they were getting drunk, making too much noise and that his partner asked them to quieten down. They went on to about midnight. One of the two men ‘on a dinghy’ is now in prison for murder, the other, known as ‘Michael’ has (as far as I’m aware) never been identified.
– In my opinion, the Neill-Fraser case warrants an Inquiry. How to marry/reconcile accounts such as that given by Brocklehurst with others, e.g. that of Gleeson’s. The police and the DPP have their guilty verdict and it seems that they are defending it ‘to the hilt’. It does not seem to me that they could – or should – reinvestigate the case. All too clearly, the matter has gone beyond that. Who then? Our judiciary? Chief Justice Alan Blow who exercised his ‘discretion’ and refused to allow Meaghan Vass to be recalled to the stand when, after she gave evidence, it was revealed that the address she’d given for her 26Jan2009 ‘sleepover’ did not exist. No, I don’t think our CJ should be the man to oversee an Inquiry/Commission. We must look further afield.
/…
[email protected]
June 7, 2018 at 15:04
…/
– Turn back to Justice Marshall’s remarks: Stephen Gleeson is judged to have perverted the course of justice…
– Justice Marshall remarked (possibly unfairly, in my opinion) of Gleeson:
Compare the two blockquotes: Where was it that Gleeson made a false and dishonest identification? Was it in signing over the photograph of the first boy (the one of which he had said “This one looks more like him than that one†… or was it in later saying of the boy in the second photo “I could recognise him for the purpose of getting her out.†– an offer which Justice Marshall was rejected by Thompson. So it seems that it didn’t happen.
– Another matter that I take issue with is Justice Marshall’s statement that “You admitted that you identified the 16-year old boy and the girl because Mr Thompson had pointed to their photographs.†I was present in the court room when under cross-examination Gleeson was asked whether he had been prepared to lie to get Neill-Fraser out. As Matt Denholm reported [Yelling witness admits to changing story after ‘car boot threat’ Australian October 31, 2017], Gleeson conceded he had been willing to lie to help Neill-Fraser in relation to providing photo identifications to one of her lawyers. A number of other reporters, and Justice Marshall, in my opinion, failed to distinguish between the pluperfect and perfect tenses. They incorrectly took Gleeson’s 31Oct2017 evidence as an admission that he was prepared to lie to that 31Oct2017 court, rather than as an admission in that court that on an earlier occasion he had been prepared to lie in relation to providing photo identifications to one of her lawyers. I was there in the court. I took direct notes of Gleeson’s evidence. He was asked if he was prepared to lie [to the court] to get Neill-Fraser out. He replied ‘No’. Later the question was re-put, and he agreed (‘Yes’) that at an earlier stage, he had been prepared to lie to get Neill-Fraser out. When considering Gleeson’s past statements, the evidence is that he had been prepared to lie in June2017 but that he was not prepared to lie in Oct2017.
– concerning Barbara Etter, I note, according to Justice Marshall’s sentencing remarks, that Geoffrey Thompson “was not authorised by her to work on the Neill-Fraser case.â€
– Regardless of the outcome of Sue Neill-Fraser’s application for a second appeal, I believe that an inquiry is needed. Our appeal courts are not investigative, our police and DPP are seen to be more concerned with justifying again and again their original charge against Sue Neill-Fraser. As such our courts and our police cannot, in my opinion, conduct an open and credible reinvestigation of the case. It pains me to say it, but we need help from outside. In whom can we trust?
john hayward
June 7, 2018 at 19:06
#8, Brian … It would have been Blow, CJ, who instructed the jury that there was sufficient evidence in law for a murder conviction.
I will defer to the public opinion of Jocelyn Scutt QC, that she had “no faith in the Tasmanian justice system”.
John Hayward
Dr Peter Lozo
June 7, 2018 at 23:03
#9 John … I read the summing up by the Trial judge. I couldn’t find a sentence where the Trial judge accepted anything in his summing to the jury. Perhaps you can help the readers by pointing us to the relevant page. Perhaps you misinterpreted the following by assuming that it implies that the judge himself accepted that Neill-Fraser deliberately murdered Bob:
“The question for each of you is, “Am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that guilt has been proven? That on the whole of the evidence that I accept the only – the only reasonable possibility, the only rational conclusion is that Ms Neill-Fraser deliberately murdered Mr Chappell, and that there’s no other sensible explanation for the evidence that I accept – no other reasonable possibility consistent with her innocence.â€
It is clear from the way the above is worded and presented in the Trial Transcript that the Trial judge wasn’t saying that he himself accepted that Neill-Fraser murdered Bob.
#12 … John Hayward. It is incorrect to say that the Trial judge “instructed the jury that there was sufficient evidence in law for a murder conviction”. CJ Blow did not instruct the jury that way at all. Had he done it then it would have been appealed against at the first appeal. Where did you get the impression that you knew what you were on about? Please refer us to the relevant page in the Trial Transcript. I searched for all instances of the word ‘conviction’ in the Trial Transcript, but none of the instances match what you are saying.
#6, TV Resident … Where is the word ‘REASONABLE’ in your question? The law is quite clear that the jury must return a guilty verdict only if they don’t have a reasonable doubt. That means that the jury can have some doubt but they must decide whether the doubt is reasonable. The jury in this case did not have a reasonable doubt and it returned a verdict of guilty. I too, did not find a reasonable doubt in this case.
Invicta
June 8, 2018 at 04:14
#14 … Imagine 12 regular citizens (none of whom are lawyers) listening to several days’ worth of evidence in a soap opera style trial. Imagine them sitting transfixed as the generously proportioned, ruddy faced prosecutor regales them with his detailed theory of Mr Chappell’s demise at the hands of Ms Neill-Fraser .. the wrench, the winch, and the pernicious greed that motivated the murder. Even though there was NO evidence to support this scenario, the jury was most likely thoroughly mesmerised by the theatre they were witnessing.
Then, with this lurid fiction fresh in their minds, trial judge Justice Blow begins his lengthy, disconnected, mind-numbing direction during which he says (at page 1,493 of the trial transcript) –
[i]’10 Now, from time to time, there have been things – possible facts suggested to witnesses in questions and the witnesses have either said they don’t know or said that that’s not correct or something like that. A suggestion of a fact in a question isn’t evidence. Let me give you two examples. Mr Ellis, in – at the end of his cross-examination of
15 Ms Neill-Fraser, put to her a series of propositions as to, for example, the killing of Mr Chappell with a wrench, and she denied that. Well what he said, the suggested facts contained in his question, aren’t evidence. They’re a theory; they’re a theory that you ought to consider. But when the witness – when Ms Neill-Fraser
20 said, “No, that didn’t happen,†her evidence is “No, that didn’t happen†– it’s your role to evaluate that evidence and consider whether you accept it or not. The suggestions put to her aren’t evidence but – but they’re a theory and you – you, of course, should consider that theory, but at this stage it’s no more than a theory’.[/i]
Twice, in the space of a minute, Justice Blow tells the jury they ‘should consider’ the prosecution’s unsupported theory. So what do you think they did, given that most of the direction probably went WAY above their heads, and it may have been one of the few things they understood?
On another point, did anyone see this news item today: https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/mysterious-case-of-missing-pregnant-mother-helen-munnings/news-story/98387abf862e2fad7d1f52f4a9ccc09e.
Amongst other things, the story says –
[i]’HELEN Munnings was just 20 years old and pregnant with her second child when she vanished from the seaside town of Burnie, Tasmania, in July 2008.
Ms Munnings’ secret boyfriend Adam Taylor — the father of her then two-year-old son Donovan and her unborn child — was the last person to see her alive.
A 2012 inquest into her disappearance and presumed death named Mr Taylor as a person of interest but failed to establish how she died or where her body might be.
Now Ms Munnings’ family have been given fresh hope following an announcement that her case had been upgraded to murder after police uncovered fresh leads.
Cold case unit Detective Inspector Rob Gunton said a “person of interest†had been identified and that a $100,000 reward remained in place for information leading to an arrest.
“I’m investigating this as a murder,†he told reporters last week. “This is very much an active investigation and will remain an active investigation until such time that we’ve resolved the matter,†he said.
“I have my suspicions but my suspicions and my beliefs are certainly not enough.
“It’s not about what we believe, what we think or even what we know — it’s what we can prove.â€'[/i]
If the lead investigator in the Neill-Fraser case, former Detective Inspector Peter Powell, had adopted the same approach as Detective Inspector Gunton, we may have had an entirely different result for Ms Neill-Fraser. Alternately, if Powell had been involved in the Munnings case, the errant boyfriend would have been banged up in Risdon quick smart.
[email protected]
June 8, 2018 at 14:32
Regarding Invicta’s #14 … I would like to add that in summing-up, then Justice Blow (now Chief Justice) made references to blood (as if blood had been identified on the Four Winds – an assertion that in my opinion was not confirmed by the forensic evidence:
Justice Blow (CT 1507-1508):
In contrast to the judge’s summing up, I note that the evidence of Debra McHoul (police forensics witness) was that the presence of blood on the Four Winds and on its dinghy was suggested, but not confirmed.
Debra McHoul (CT 668-669):
Dr Mark Reynolds gave evidence in March of this year (2018) to Justice Brett. He had written three reports on matters relating to the Neill-Fraser case, and amongst other things had reported (regarding trace blood analysis) that no blood was found on any surface [of the Four Winds] or on the dinghy. He confirmed that finding to the court.
With regard to Justice Blow’s further summing-up to the jury, I invite the reader to examine the following excerpts which led up to his statement: “It’s open to you, if you’re satisfied of the combination of facts […] then your verdict should be guilty of murder”:
CT 1496-1534::
Mr Ellis, quite understandably, chose to not further question that direction of Justice Blow.
John Biggs
June 8, 2018 at 14:48
#13 … Mr Lozo, we need to consider the whole context of the case.
I suggest you read two things, #14 for a start.
Then the following .. which describes in part the summing up. The case started with an accusation by Phillip Triffet that SN-F had told him she was going to kill Chappell by wrapping him in chicken wire and throwing him overboard. So the case for the Prosecution rested on Triffett’s veracity.
If Phillip Triffett wasn’t telling the truth however, the prosecution’s case depended from the outset on a malicious lie.
The lively mind of the DPP quickly painted in the needed details: [i]‘She’s walking backwards and forwards and delivers blow – a blow or blows, or maybe stabs him with a screwdriver, I don’t know …’[/i] Eventually he settles on a wrench, the screwdriver becoming a secondary option. Mr Chappell’s body was then winched onto the deck, manhandled .. or rather woman handled .. onto the yacht’s dinghy and taken away, weighted with a fire extinguisher and dropped in the unsearched deeper waters of the River Derwent. In the course of this the dinghy would be spattered with blood: a forensic test with luminol, which is sensitive to blood, but also to several substances including some paints and bleach, was positive.
So the trial proceeded on the assumption that Neill-Fraser was guilty, as no other line of investigation was pursued, which put her in the untenable position of having to prove her innocence. The DPP’s construction of what happened, although described by the judge ‘as a theory’, was treated as fact. Thus in his summing up His Honour said: ‘The first question is .. am I satisfied of the truth or correctness of that evidence, not am I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of that piece of evidence.’
The judge had pointed out to the jury that the evidence was entirely circumstantial, there being no body to determine the cause of death, if indeed Chappell was dead; there was no weapon, wrench, screwdriver or whatever else; there was no apparent motive although she was attributed a motive of having said (by Phillip Triffett again) that she wanted to kill Chappell; there were no witnesses to what might have happened.
And when asked by the Foreman of the Jury about the distinction between murder and manslaughter, His Honour said that murder requires intention to kill: ‘So if an assailant hits someone on the head with a wrench, for example, and if that sort of bodily harm that’s intended, a head injury caused with a wrench, is something that could well cause death and the assailant knows that that’s the sort of bodily harm that could well cause death then that’s murder.’
In summing up, Blow J said: ‘If you’re considering whether you accept the evidence of Phillip Triffett or not, if you are satisfied that his evidence is true then you may take that into account. You don’t need to reach a state where you’re satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his evidence is true before you may take it into account, and that applies to every piece of evidence in this case, every piece of circumstantial evidence.’
In sentencing, Blow J concluded as follows: A witness named (Phillip Triffett) gave evidence about two conversations with Ms Neill-Fraser in the mid-1990s. That evidence was disputed at the trial. My impression of Phillip Triffett is that he is not always honest, but, after considering his evidence very carefully, I have decided that it was truthful. In substance, he said that Ms Neill-Fraser told him of a plan to kill her brother on board a yacht that she then owned, attach heavy objects to his body, throw the body into deep water, and scuttle the yacht.
Two things here:
1.The Judge’s reliance on Triffett’s veracity, a known criminal, when he had tried to bargain with the police for motivation of his own circumstances if he told his story, for which there is no corroborating evidence.
2. The question from the jury. By saying (for example) that it would be murder if using a wrench with intent … a slip of the tongue, or an attempt to reinforce the DPP’s “theory”?
Geraldine Allan
June 8, 2018 at 15:26
Marshall AJ. TWO retired Tasmanian Supreme Court judges are among four top jurists who have been temporarily appointed to the the Supreme Court to help clear a backlog of cases.
Former Supreme Court Justice Pierre Slicer Lautalatoa and David Porter QC will be joined by former Federal Court judge Shane Marshall and former Northern Territory Chief Justice, Brian Martin QC, on the Supreme Court bench.
Former Supreme Court Justice Pierre Slicer Lautalatoa is one of four jurists appointed to help with a backlog of cases. The appointments follow the passing of the Supreme Court Amendment (Judges) Bill last year which enabled the appointment of part-time acting judges.
The four judges were appointed immediately for two-year terms.
Geraldine Allan
June 8, 2018 at 15:28
Marshall AJ … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Marshall
Geraldine Allan
June 8, 2018 at 15:56
The Jury –
[i]“Trial by jury is central to our criminal justice system. Twelve randomly selected, ordinary people are handed the responsibility of deciding if alleged criminals are guilty or not guilty. They sit through the trial then retire to the jury deliberation room to reach a verdict. We place enormous faith in the idea that this process is the best way to ensure justice is served. But no system is perfect. Occasionally there are allegations of juror misbehaviour or juror bias. Given we’re all only human, how accepting should we be of these imperfections? And how stressful can jury duty be? Inside the Jury Room provides a rare glimpse of what happens when it all goes wrong. Do we give enough support to jurors, and how well can this system ever work? …â€[/i]
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/features/inside-the-jury-room/
Dr Peter Lozo
June 8, 2018 at 17:14
#16 John, When I initially looked at the SNF case back in 2015 I did not need nor did I include Mr Triffet’s evidence to reach a beyond doubt conclusion on who went onboard Four Winds and murdered Bob (and then used the winch to move the body from the yacht onto the dinghy).
But when I finally decided to look into Mr Triffet’s evidence I noted that his first statement was taken well before the police worked out what most probably happened and we’ll before it was made public what was found on the yacht. I noted the similarity between what he stated and what appears to have happened. I also noted the content of the conversation between Sue and the yacht broker when she called him on 8th Jan 09 and then again several weeks later. On 8th Jan she told the broker that she and Bob had separated. During the phone conversation a few weeks after Bob disappeared she mentioned to the yacht broker that Bob’s body was probably weighted down by a fire extinguisher.
I concluded that Mr Triffet was honest but that his testimony wasn’t what led me to conclude that Sue was on the yacht from about 2:30 pm to about 8pm and intentionally lied to the police. I also concluded that Sue returned to the yacht at around midnight to dispose of the body.
I can’t speak for the jury but I don’t see why they would not believe Triffet’s statement to have been truthful after hearing Sue’s many lies. I often wondered why did she want the yacht broker to think that she was separated from Bob. Here is a news footage from the time of the 2010 trial:
Watch “Neill-Fraser ‘separated’ from Chappell: witness” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/hkn166eyA00
If you go through the technical details of how one would use the relevant winch and the rope to winch the body from below the deck, move it across the deck and then lower the body onto the dinghy you will note several important things. It is the conclusion that is interesting:
– The relevant winch drum rotates only in one direction (clockwise);
– The winch is directly aligned with the yacht’s saloon and the stern gate;
– The winch can be used as a pulley when lowering the body onto the dinghy.This appears to have been the case because the rope was found to have been wound around the winch in the opposite to the normal way;
– Because of the orientation of the winch with respect to the stern gate the person who is using the winch as the pulley would need to pull onto the rope with their left hand in order to withstand the pulling force of the dead body that is being lowered onto the dinghy via the stern gate. This would put quite a strain on the person’s left hand and in particular their left wrist. Sue had an apparent injury to her left wrist. She is seen in several photo’s and live video footage of 27th Jan holding her left wrist. The police noted that there was no evidence of that wrist injury before the 26th (she also had a cut on her left thumb).
The whole process (the murder; rigging up the winch and the rope; wrapping up the body; the winching of the body from below the deck; across the deck and then lowering it into the dinghy; disposing of the body via the dinghy) would have taken a single female person who isn’t particularly strong at least 3 hours (Sue has not yet provided an explanation for her whereabouts from 4pm to 9pm of 26th). We have recently found out that the relevant winch has a power ratio of 27:1, meaning that it would require a person to exert power that is equivalent to manually lifting a weight of 2.7 kg in order to operate the winch to lift a weight of 65 kg. Therefore, it would have been relatively easy for Sue to have done it but it takes a lot of time to get the body from below the deck onto the dinghy. I worked out that the rope arrangement had to be changed for each phase of the operation (I have identified a total of 3 phases that required the use of the winch). Who had the time and the technical know-how?
Simon Warriner
June 8, 2018 at 17:55
Perhaps the point that is being missed in all of this discussion is the fact that the Judge has never been specifically trained to search for the truth, but has been well trained in the art of sophistry, a technique used by lawyers to distract, confuse and conceal.
There are numerous extracts from Evan Whitton’s excellent book on the history of English Law on TT that discuss this very issue.
Unfortunately, until we elect a parliament, or parliaments actually, that are capable of recognising that truth and justice march hand in hand, and that properly trained judges are required to ensure that truth plays its central role in judicial proceedings, we are doomed to bear witness to endless reruns of this rather sad and sorry tale. I cannot say that I am convinced by either side, but what I do know is that the search for the truth has left me somewhat concerned by the state of our justice system.
As always, it is a leadership problem. We elect our leaders, so that problem is ours to fix.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 8, 2018 at 18:35
#14 Invicta and #16 John
I don’t see how what is written in #14 above (some of it apparently meant for me) or anywhere else above or in any previous TT articles and comments can overcome what I find to be the critical list of evidence:
– Several hours that are needed to execute the whole series of events (the murder; the rigging of the winch and the ropes; winching the body from below the deck onto the dinghy; dumping of the body in the river some distance away from the yacht);
– the technical know-how (the plumbing to sabotage the yacht; the winch to help in moving the body);
– injuries to Sue’s left wrist and left thumb;
– the last known person to have been with Bob on the yacht (Sue) lied about her whereabouts for the afternoon of 26th and lied about her whereabouts on the late evening of 26th-early morning of 27th; no explanation for her wherabouts from 4pm to 9pm;
– Sue matches the description of the person who was spotted on a motorised inflatable dinghy at around 11:30 pm – 12:00am next to the Sandy Bay Rowing Shed heading out in the direction of Four Winds (note that the witness heard a motor). Sue lied about staying home the whole night. When Sue decided to tell people that she actually went out that night she gave 3 different vversions (she started changing her first version after the police released a statement that a person was spotted in a dinghy late at night; it appears that Sue was trying to put herself as being outside the timeframe at which the person was spotted so gave a final version where she walked from home to the waterfront and then back home to get the right keys and then walked back to the waterfront to pick up her car).
I do not care for Triffet’s evidence nor the evidence of the ‘self proclaimed ASIO agent’ (Gleeson).
Whether Neill-Fraser received a fair trial is something I am not qualified to comment on.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 8, 2018 at 21:00
#16, John Biggs …
“And when asked by the Foreman of the Jury about the distinction between murder and manslaughter, His Honour said that murder requires intention to kill: ‘So if an assailant hits someone on the head with a wrench, for example, and if that sort of bodily harm that’s intended, a head injury caused with a wrench, is something that could well cause death and the assailant knows that that’s the sort of bodily harm that could well cause death then that’s murder.’”
The trial judge could have used any other object as an example, but you seem to think it somewhat odd that he chose to use the same object as what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon.
If you look at what the State aimed to prove to the jury it had nothing to do with the actual weapon used or how Bob was killed. The State aimed to prove that Bob was dead and that Sue murdered him. The State was perfectly entitled to suggest a possible weapon, or the way the murder had occurred, but the jury was not required to reach any conclusion on that. All they had to make a beyond reasonable doubt decision on was whether Bob was dead and whether it was Sue who murdered him intentionally.
John Biggs
June 8, 2018 at 21:32
#23 … The trial judge could have used any other object as an example, but you seem to think it somewhat odd that he chose to use the same object as what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon. Not odd, suggestive, particularly to a jury that judge would choose the same weapon.
All they had to make a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ decision was whether Bob was dead and whether it was Sue who murdered him intentionally, and it wasn’t beyond reasonable doubt.
You and I are wasting each other’s time. Our exchanges pass each other like ships in the night.
William Boeder
June 8, 2018 at 22:02
#23 … Peter Lozo, this is for your interest and consideration …
This link touches upon how the judicial system, at the time of the case matters referred to therein, was flawed in its prosecutorial protocols. These specific matters were to set a law precedent now applicable in the USA.
http://breakdown.myajc.com/law-school-101-when-the-prosecution-withholds-evidence/
Is it permissible for the presiding judge to lead the court to directly consider the hypothetical, and or, circumstantial-only evidence?
Dr Peter Lozo
June 8, 2018 at 22:33
#24 … You consider the judge’s choice of the example weapon to be a either a slip of the tongue or an intentional reinforcement of what the prosecutor stated. I consider the judge’s choice of the example weapon as neither of those you stated but simply a natural mental process of recalling the same example as what had been previously raised during the trial by the prosecutor. Why you made a point about this issue is odd to me.
Where did the idea of the wrench come from anyway? Mr Ellis didn’t pull out the word ‘wrench’ out of the blue. I understand that Sue told the police that a wrench from the yacht was missing. Given that she told the police that Bob was working in the yacht’s engine compartment and that the wrench was missing, and given the blood spatter, it is easy to see that a wrench might have been used to strike at Bob.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 8, 2018 at 22:50
#25 William … Here is something for your consideration:
I have consistently stated many times over the past few years that I am not qualified to make a statement on legal matters/technicalities.
You must have read my earlier statements where I expressed that I am not qualified to comment on legal technicalities, and yet you are wanting me look at such matters. What you are talking about is a legal matter concerning how a judge should run a trial, etc. My interest is in analysing the trial evidence and in analysing people’s interpretation of that evidence.
Invicta
June 9, 2018 at 03:03
#26 … First, Mr Biggs drew attention to Justice Blow’s several references to a ‘wrench’ in his direction to the jury, because judges are required to deliver a thoroughly impartial direction. Arguably, the repeated mention of what was an entirely speculative murder weapon did not satisfy that requirement.
Second, do you have a reference for Ms Neill-Fraser telling police a wrench from the yacht was missing?
#27 … Dr Lozo, if you are aware you have little or no knowledge of ‘legal technicalities’ why do you persist in commenting on this case, expressing nothing more than a personal opinion?
There are certain expectations of a criminal trial, and a high standard of proof, and those who are aware of the legal requirements believe the Neill-Fraser case failed in several ways.
If you don’t understand this, perhaps you should do some research before commenting further.
Ian M
June 9, 2018 at 11:52
#28 …
That’s the spirit of robust discussion. Don’t dare admit your limitations, or disagree.
[email protected]
June 9, 2018 at 13:13
With regard to Invicta‘s (#28) request for a reference “for Ms Neill-Fraser telling police a wrench from the yacht was missing”: While FW was at CleanLift, they ‘lost’ quite a lot of things, including little wrenches for small nuts [see: CT 1197 30 (Gunson EXD) & 1297 8 Ellis XXD] When questioned by Mr Ellis, Sue Neill-Fraser could not remember if she’d told police about the missing little wrenches, though Mr Ellis pointedly suggested to her that she had not told police about them.
I think he was trying to lay the foundation for what he later denied was his ‘wrench theory’. I imagine that Mr Ellis was wanting to suggest that some wrenches were missing because one of them (hypothetically) was a murder weapon and further, to suggest that SN-F had not told police about them going missing because one of them (supposedly) was the murder weapon – the insinuation being that SN-F had rid herself of it, or some such thing. Perhaps it would be best to read part of that cross-examination exchange again:
Mr Ellis, in closing told the court that the first time SN-F had ever mentioned wrenches was not in interviews (with police)/statements (taken by police):
The so-called ‘wrench theory’ was to result in the 5th of the 10 grounds of (the first) appeal, namely:
I finish here by noting that an application for a second appeal, under the ‘new legislation’ is under way, and that supporting the prosecution case at the original trial is hardly germane to present proceedings, nor to this TT article. In the recent past, I have unsuccessfully submitted in comment-threads my notes of the 2nd Appeal hearings and have similarly proposed TT articles which relate to present matters … alas these were not published. I suppose perhaps, that in our Editor’s opinion, I was sailing him ‘too close to the judicial winds’ (my expression, not the Ed‘s).
Dr Peter Lozo
June 9, 2018 at 13:42
#28 … When one talks about the wrench one should take into account the context of how the issue came up during the Trial.
Search for the word ‘wrench’. If one reads people’s comments on various blogs one gets an impression that Mr Ellis just came up with a suggestion of a wrench being used, but no-one (not even Dr Bob Moles) talked about the context and how and why Mr Ellis suggested it.
Since the jury members aren’t required to have a legal background, nor are they required to assess the correctness of the legal proceedings, why do you question my interest in commenting on non-legal matters of this case . given that my last sentence in #27 is “My interest is in analysing the trial evidence and in analysing people’s interpretation of that evidence.”?
Dr Peter Lozo
June 9, 2018 at 14:22
I stand corrected.
The first time that Sue mentioned missing wrenches was during the trial (I was relying too much on my memory). Anyway, the context in which the wrench was brought up and how it was done suggests to me that it wasn’t just an invention by the prosecutor’s imagination to suggest a wrench as a possible weapon that might have been used.
But if you listen to what Dr Bob Moles said on ’60 minutes’ several years ago you get an impression that Mr Ellis’s imagination invented out of nowhere the wrench as the weapon. Given the context, I don’t see why some people are making this a big issue. Given that SNF’s defence team is proposing that someone else boarded the yacht and murdered Bob, I don’t see what the prosecutor suggested as being a possible weapon would go against Sue.
[email protected]
June 9, 2018 at 14:53
I think that that’s a fair question from John (Hayward at #3): “Who submitted the transcript of this sentencing to TT?â€
In my opinion, whoever it was who did so might have bothered to inform us that the bold formatting was not that of Acting Justice Marshall, but rather that of this article’s unknown contributor. In the formatting (and in the creation of extra paragraph-breaks) I believe we can discern the hand of one who has long demonstrated an anti-Neill-Fraser predisposition.
Were the contributor to be one of those present on this thread, I posit that, on such a pre-dispositional criterion, we could rule out John Biggs, William Boeder, John Hayward, TV Resident, Invicta, Geraldine Allan and myself. [re #21: I leave Simon’s quite sensible contribution as being ‘hors de combat’] Were our contributor to be present on this thread, we then must have a very short field. I should note that of our four apparent ‘SN-F is guilty’ threadsters, one stands out by reason of a certain digital fingerprint … a certaincy (aka ‘certitude’) suggested by said fingerprint, and also by having been exposed previously as having operated then on certain (there’s that word again) TT threads while using more than one ‘persona’ – a clear breach of the TT Code of Conduct (‘more observed in the breach than …’)
I hope, fellow Tasmanians, that you are having a wonderful, long weekend. The sky is clear in the north, and I’m headed for the bush: Liffey or bust!
Geraldine Allan
June 9, 2018 at 16:19
Hmmmn.
#30 — as usual, well researched and to the point.
Peter Bright
June 9, 2018 at 17:53
Hello Garry #33 …
I believe that the Editor has always exercised a high level of tolerance in his processing of submitted Comments.
I assume it’s his way of generously giving everyone more than just “a fair go” in the interests of freedom of speech in a forum mainly supported by private donations and in which those Commenting pay nothing for the enormous privilege of gaining access to the public domain that’s otherwise unattainable.
This is cause, I believe, for profound gratitude, particularly from we, the powerless.
I suspect that if the Editor rigorously enforced the Comments section by strictly applying its Code of Conduct there would be lots of collateral damage as maybe half of those submitted are promptly deleted, despite the automatic “Comment accepted” notification. Given the sloppy, lazy, obscene, nasty, juvenile and Facebook nature of some Comments, I suspect there are certainly some here who would really appreciate that, however I’ve noticed that some of those reforms are already underway.
It seems to me that the Editor has always relied upon all Tasmanian Times’ contributors to submit their articles, and their Comments upon articles, in good faith and as backed by a high level of care, rigorous attention to detail (particularly fact and grammar) and fulsome respect for his right to irreversibly delete anything, particularly those offerings outside the legislated requirements regarding libel.
The reputation of these columns would certainly be enhanced if personal attacks, snide remarks, ridicule, sarcasm, nastiness, crudeness and personal ‘put-downs’ were not published … preferably because they were never offered.
I am finding, in my doddery and awkward years, that by asking myself “Is what I am contemplating kind, or is it unkind?” and thereby perceiving what is the right thing to do with this sieve .. [i]’If it’s kind, do it'[/i] and [i]’If it’s unkind, don’t do it”[/i] and I recommend this course to all – particularly because the answer is usually both swift and clear.
I believe that readers should always remember that publication of nearly everything in Tasmanian Times is a privilege, and not a right. Respect counts.
[email protected]
June 9, 2018 at 18:14
Well put, Peter (#35). We haven’t yet met, though we’ve corresponded via TT and through it, privately, for years. Actually it’s because of TT that I publish my email address … recalling as some of us will, how our email addresses used to be displayed by ‘hovering’ over the ‘Posted by…’ part of a threadster’s message. Ah … those salad days! Those days before the ‘Code of Conduct’. I argued against the Code, hoping that the common sense/good will of contributors would eventually force the nasties away from their negatives. I hope your day is blessed by peace and quietude, Peter – Garry.
John Biggs
June 9, 2018 at 20:59
Re #35 and #36 …
An inspiring exchange. Makes me want to try harder to be kinder in my Comments. Difficult at times.
john hayward
June 9, 2018 at 22:06
Back at the turn of this century I was involved in a civil matter involving both a (then) barrister, who was the judge in this case, and the same DPP who was representing the respondent RPDC.
I wish all those posters expressing faith in the S N-F judgement could have shared in the revelations from my case.
John Hayward
William Boeder
June 9, 2018 at 22:08
#37 … It takes a good keen man to show an empathy toward his boldest critics.
One must question the time and energy necessary for an attempt to placate an unreasonably pernicious communicant.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 00:15
#38, John … Thanks for sharing that information. In 2015 I did some research to find out why some people who were commenting on the SNF case were so negative about the Tasmanian judicial system. I flagged about 4 people, including you. I did learn that some of the flagged people have had negative experiences with the Tasmanian judicial system. Those are sorts of things that can lead to a conscious or subconscious perceptual and cognitive bias when considering the evidence in the SNF case.
How can William Boerder be convinced that there is a lot of perceptual and cognitive bias in the SNF camp? Some of those in the SNF camp are relatives and/or friends of SNF or her late mother. Some have been led by the ‘Shadow of Doubt’ documentary to believe that there was in fact a grey dinghy tethered at Four Winds at 4 pm and at 5 pm.
Some have been led to believe that Sue told only one lie. Some have been led to believe that Sue did not have the physical strength to winch out Bob’s body, but it was never explained to them how easy it is with a winch that has a power ratio of 27:1. Some have been led to believe that the prosecutor invented a weapon (a wrench) but it was never explained to them how the issue of a wrench actually arose during the Trial. Some have so much faith in Dr Bob Moles that they are led to believe that whatever he says is valid. Some are excited that the current appeal has a witness who was in his dinghy at night about the time a person was seen, but they are ignoring that this person did not have a motor on his dinghy, whereas at the trial the witness stated that he heard a motor.
William Boeder
June 10, 2018 at 02:29
#40, Peter Lozo … I note your perception skills are a little wanting when you could not copy the correct spelling of my name.
However, be that as it may, a sharply perceptive practitioner of your analytical pursuits would have discovered that the preponderance of my SNF comments has been based upon the state’s judiciary and its carriage of Tasmania’s own version of biased justice.
Is the word of a professional deemed more credibile than the word of an honest citizen?
Invicta
June 10, 2018 at 03:23
Dr Lozo, may I refresh your memory of my comment #14 and Justice Blow’s less than impartial jury direction. He said, at page1,493 of the trial transcript –
[i]‘10 Now, from time to time, there have been things – possible facts suggested to witnesses in questions and the witnesses have either said they don’t know or said that that’s not correct or something like that. A suggestion of a fact in a question isn’t evidence. Let me give you two examples. Mr Ellis, in – at the end of his cross-examination of
15 Ms Neill-Fraser, put to her a series of propositions as to, for example, the killing of Mr Chappell with a wrench, and she denied that. Well what he said, the suggested facts contained in his question, aren’t evidence. They’re a theory; they’re a theory that you ought to consider. But when the witness – when Ms Neill-Fraser
20 said, “No, that didn’t happen,†her evidence is “No, that didn’t happen†– it’s your role to evaluate that evidence and consider whether you accept it or not. The suggestions put to her aren’t evidence but – but they’re a theory and you – you, of course, should consider that theory, but at this stage it’s no more than a theory’.[/i]
Twice, in the space of a minute, Justice Blow told the jury they ‘should consider’ the prosecution’s unsupported theory.
Compare the direction of Justice Blythe of the Queensland Supreme Court in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay for the murder of his wife, Allison ( https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2014/QSC14-154.pdf ). Unlike the Neill-Fraser case, the victim’s body was recovered, but the evidence against Baden-Clay was largely circumstantial.
Blythe’s direction is clear, well-organised and above all, impartial – as it should be. In canvassing the same aspect of the direction as Blow does, above, he says –
[i]’27. Sometimes a lawyer includes an allegation of fact in a question asked of a witness.
28. No matter how positively that allegation was asserted, it will not form part of the evidence unless the witness agreed with it.
29. Let me give an example divorced from this case.
30. Imagine the lawyer says to a witness: “The toy was blue, wasn’t it?â€; and the witness replies, “No, it wasn’tâ€. Given that answer, there is no evidence that the toy was blue.
31. Even if you do not believe the witness, still there is no evidence that the toy is blue.
32. In general, disbelief of a witness’s answer does not provide evidence of the opposite.
33. To prove that the toy was blue, there would need to be evidence from some other source, such as a photograph or the testimony of another witness’.[/i]
Note particularly, item 29 – [i]’Let me give you an example divorced from this case'[/i] which is followed by a simple, totally unrelated and impartial explanation, one that’s NOT an explanation/example using the scenario posited by the prosecution followed by advice to the jury that they ‘should consider’ it.
That’s just one reason why many consider the Neill-Fraser conviction to be unsafe.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 13:47
#42, Invicta … Thank you for the comment. It is noted, I am not qualified to comment on a matter of law concerning the judge’s summation to the jury and will thus not engage in a discussion on the subject. Furthemore, I certainly won’t jump onto a bandwagon of miscarriage of justice just because some people (regardless of their legal standing) claim that the verdict is unsafe. My interest is in analysing the trial evidence as well as in analysing people’s analysis and interpretation of that evidence. I am very confident that the police got the right person and that the jury made a correct decision in this case. You just have to accept that it is OK for people to limit their opinion to some aspects of the case. I would appreciate if you were to respect my desire not to engage in a discussion on points of law.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 13:57
#41 … William, I apologise for misspelling your surname.
Being an honest citizen does not necessarily mean that the person is objective, or that the person is aware of their bias.
Being objective isn’t easy. Scientists are trained to be as objective as possible. I work hard at staying objective.
John Biggs
June 10, 2018 at 15:00
#44 … “Scientists are trained to be as objective as possible. I work hard at staying objective.”
Then Mr Lozo, you had better try a little harder. Second guessing people’s motives is not very scientific. I for one have never met Sue Neill-Fraser.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 15:31
#45 … Thankyou, Dr Biggs.
I did not care about the motive but rather whether the police got the right person and whether the jury made the correct decision.
But when Lynn Giddings tried to make someone believe that Sue would not have benefited from Bob’s will any more than what Sue would have gotten otherwise, my curious mind decided to sit down and do a quick and rough estimation just to see how it works out. My quick and rough estimation was that Sue would have been at least $500 K better off under the terms of the will compared to what she would have received if they had just separated. Search TT of around six months ago and you will find how I got to the $500 K.
It isn’t up to me to decide whether this was a sufficient motive. As I said earlier, I was puzzled about the reason Sue wanted the yacht broker to think that she and Bob had separated. My conclusion on who murdered Bob is based on the other evidence. I have written my reasoning on various parts of the evidence across a large number of Comments here, and I have also written about my review of other people’s opinions.
William Boeder
June 10, 2018 at 17:43
#42, Thank-you, Invicta for your well-researched then extracted depiction of the “correct judicial protocols” to be set into motion during a presiding judge’s summarization of the evidence presented when this case summarization is delivered to the members of the jury panel.
An exemplary example of proper non-biased conduct by the Honourable Supreme Court Justice Mr Justin Blythe.
Please note that Justice Justin Blyth was sharply aware of how not to lead his summary of the evidence presented during the Baden Clay case with “evidence unproven nor improper witness non-attested to evidence.”
Further, that the body of the deceased was recovered and identified.
From there that the given course of events leading to the murder of the wife that the presented evidence was circumstantial only, yet at least there was a body of the wife of Baden Clay recovered.
The same cannot be demonstrated by the presiding judge of the SNF case, in his summary of the circumstantial only evidence that he had delivered to the jury panel, the judge had steered his summarization of the circumstantial only evidence to impress upon the jury his and the public prosecutor’s determined course of delivering the (non-beyond all doubt or reason) available circumstantial only evidence.
“An error in law.”
Therefore it is my understanding that a situation of bias was present at the time of the case summary presentation of evidence that was delivered to the jury panel by the presiding judge of the SNF case by the Honourable Justice Blow.
John Hayward had alluded to this very same via his comment #3 yet had not provided the specifics as had Invicta at #42.
Essentially such an error of bias may introduce the call for a new case trial to allowed to the defendant.
Bias;
Bias can be shown by outright favouritism or hostility towards a party in a case, or
by anything that could compromise a judge’s or other decision-makers fairness and independence, such as when they have a financial interest or a special determination to ensure the outcome of a case.
The burden of proof;
The obligation on one legal party to prove their side of the case in court. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must leave no reasonable doubt that what they allege is what really happened. If they cannot prove their case in this way, the accused will not be convicted. In a civil trial, the plaintiff must prove that their claim is more likely to be true than false. See also the balance of probabilities, beyond a reasonable doubt, the onus of proof.
William Boeder
June 10, 2018 at 17:59
#44, Thankyou Dr Peter Lozo, your apology is accepted. Please understand how the presence of disingenuous bias can completely alter the procedural fairness of process during a court trial.
Unfortunately, I have detected a number of such flagrant errors in law, be they Supreme Court Hearings or be they Criminal trials, and also sentencing appeals cases that seem not to offer any consolation of a change in the sentencing regimen for an increased or reduced sentence via Tasmania’s Supreme Court of Appeal.
Many a rich harvest of fees has been won by defence lawyers without any variation achieved in a sentencing appeal case, and the same can be said for Supreme Court adjudicated Hearings.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 19:44
Just to clarify: In #40 I was referring to biases rather than motives.
There is a suggestion in #45 that I am second guessing people’s motives. My comment in #40 clearly refers to biases. My perception of various people’s comments is that the nature of the comments have an underlying bias. I listed a number of valid sources of possible bias.
Geraldine Allan
June 10, 2018 at 21:35
For the recordI don’t “believe†that:
—the defendant SN-F told one lie. I know she did, and I believe I know why she so did.
—the speculation or otherwise as to SN-F’s strength with the winch, as I have no evidence that she actually used it. Thus, if I were a jury member I wouldn’t want or need to know ratios about an action that was not supported by evidence that came through the witness box.
The wrench for me was a tactical diversion; speculation. Given the full context of the mention of the word and the defendant’s denial, and her “evidence†about use of same, I am not interested in that debate point, either.
Whilst I hold great respect for the learned Dr Bob Moles’ opinions, I am not overly influenced in his say-so just because he says it. I can think/read for myself.
I don’t and won’t ignore the facts given as evidence at trial.Yet, I do and will ignore the speculation which is unsupported by evidence.
At any fair and just trial the rule is — if it didn’t come though the witness box as evidence, it is not evidence. Jury decisions are to be arrived at by evidence only. Certainly not speculation. And that is precisely what the jury might more appropriately have be reminded of and, decided upon.
Dr Peter Lozo
June 10, 2018 at 22:13
I actually took an interest in figuring out how is it that Lynn Giddings (who was a good friend of Sue’s mother) came up with just the ‘one lie’ but other people came up with a list of over 10 (my list is about 15 or so).
It then hit me: Lynn (and a few other people) have an odd definition of what constitutes a lie. In their definition, the lie that Sue admitted to is the only lie.