Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Criminal Cases Review Commission CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON Legislative Council The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:53): Today I would like to recount for those unable to attend the lessons imparted at a recent public meeting I held at which the guest speakers were Paddy Hill and Mr Gerry Conlon, both of whom were wrongly convicted for involvement in the bombings carried out by the provisional IRA in the early 1970s. In their subsequent appeals many years later, it was found that the police and forensic witnesses had intentionally deceived the courts. It was the overturning of their convictions and the growing concern of the UK public that caused the British government to establish the Runciman royal commission to look into the administration of criminal justice in the UK. The commission recommended the establishment of the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC). Standing apart from the established judiciary in government, applicants who have previously extinguished the judicial appeals mechanism are able to apply to the CCRC for a review of their criminal conviction in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commission was empowered to review all material forming the basis of the conviction, as well as any new material which had come to light or which was not presented during the trial. This includes information not normally available to the defence. If, following review, the commission is satisfied that there are grounds for retrial, it will refer the case back to the Court of Appeal. In the 11 years since then referrals by the CCRC have led to the overturning of some 300 convictions which had otherwise exhausted all avenues of appeal. Fifty of those convictions were for murder; four of them involved people who were hanged after they were convicted. Both Mr Hill and Mr Conlon spoke of the trauma that their wrongful conviction caused, not just for them but for their families, and how even after they had been released they have struggled to rebuild relationships and reclaim their lives. Both now work tirelessly in assisting others who have suffered miscarriages of justice—a task made substantially easier with the establishment of the CCRC. I am very sorry for the unimaginable pain and suffering these men and their families have endured and I am very grateful to them for having spoken to us about their experiences. Additionally, I fear that here in Australia we too have innocent men and women serving time for another's crime or, as in the Henry Keogh case, potentially no crime has occurred at all. Two recent cases have demonstrated that Australia is not above the occurrence of miscarriages of justice despite how we may pretend that that is the case. Both Andrew Mallard in Western Australia and Graham Stafford in Queensland were convicted of murder and served lengthy gaol terms prior to having their convictions quashed. The case of Edward Splatt, whose biography of sorts Flawed forensics: the Splatt case and Stewart Cockburn has recently been released, makes plain that South Australia's legal system is just as vulnerable. As was recently stated in an ABC article by a former justice of the High Court, Michael Kirby OAM: What we need to consider in Australia is a body which is full-time working on examining these cases, so that it doesn't depend upon a letter written to some newspaper that gets people behind it. There are too many chance factors in that and too many possibilities of slipping through the floor boards. I am convinced of the need for South Australia, but preferably the federal government, to establish a CCRC. The determination of whether a criminal case be retired for fears of miscarriages of justice should in no way be politically influenced. One only has to review the statements of the former attorney-general in the other place concerning the case of Henry Keogh to realise that this is presently not the case. Time expired.