PROPHETIC WORDS UNTIMELY OPINION

ABOUT 10 years ago, the late Chester Porter QC, the defence lawyer in the

Chamberlain case, spoke these haunting words about the Sue Neill-Fraser case:

“There is no doubt in my mind that this case calls for an inquiry. There are very substantial doubts about this case. I can put it this way: it would have not at all been surprising if the jury had acquitted this lady, because the evidence was so weak against her. But with the additional evidence that is now available, it is hard to see how a conviction could stand.

“I think the Tasmanians really need to think about this because it is holding them up as a bit of a laughing stock to the rest of Australia, if it wasn’t such a tragedy. The standard of the investigation in this case was not good. Things happened in the trial that would be most interesting if they came under the examination.”

Mieneke Haynes South Hobart

I DECLARE my outrage and disappointment to a newspaper that thinks it to give space to the police in a democracy to give opinions about matters decided by the court or that may be before the court.

The job of police in an enlightened democracy is to gather and present evidence. That is their role and contribution to justice. Declaring their satisfaction and approval with court decision is not appropriate from a police commissioner. For the media to allow that expression calls into question their interest in other than controversy. To what end?

Alan Rodd North Hobart