“Today’s decision strengthens our resolve”

Disappointingly, the Court of Appeal in NSW has announced that it found there was no legal error in the inquiry into Kathleen Folbigg’s conviction, led by former judge the Hon R O Blanch AM QC in 2019.

The inquiry sought to establish whether there was a reasonable doubt as to Kathleen Folbigg’s guilt.

Despite the finding, Kathleen’s supporters remain steadfast in their commitment to fight for her to be pardoned.

“This was a civil proceeding, quite separate from the pardon petition signed by 90 scientists,” said Kathleen’s friend Tracy Chapman.

The inquiry heard scientific evidence of research undertaken since the convictions, connecting a genetic abnormality common to Kathleen and her two girls with cardiac conditions.

According to the Court: “Neither this nor other medical evidence was found to have raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt. The Court was not entitled to reassess the findings of fact made by the former judge. Its role was confined to determining if there had been legal error. The Court held that the former judge had applied the correct legal test to the evidence and followed fair procedures in holding hearings and preparing his 500 page report.”

Tracy released a statement saying: “We’re content that we respectfully challenged the system – as is our legal right. You don’t always win in the manner you expect. There’s a lot of value in learning from the experience, whether you win or lose. You have to give it a go, or the system isn’t being utilised effectively.

“Today wasn’t our day to successfully take Judge Blanch to task in relation to the way he conducted the 2019 inquiry and his findings, but it has got many more people looking at this important case now than ever before, and many more people are starting to ask valuable questions about how we got here.

“Many international eyes are now on this case and certainly, many more Australian’s are rightly asking why Kath’s still in prison after 18 years when there’s mounting scientific evidence relating to her innocence.

“Today’s decision went against Kath, but it only strengthens our resolve to keep going until the truth is self evident. We will never give up.”

As the BBC noted recently: “If Folbigg is freed and her convictions are overturned, her ordeal will be seen as the worst miscarriage of justice in Australia’s history – worse even than the case of Lindy Chamberlain, who served three years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murdering her baby, Azaria, at Uluru.”

“The science in this case is compelling and cannot be ignored,” said human geneticist and researcher Professor Jozef Gecz.

Child and public health researcher Professor Fiona Stanley added: “It is deeply concerning that medical and scientific evidence has been ignored, in preference of circumstantial evidence. We now have an alternative explanation for the death of the Folbigg children.”

Our fight for justice continues and the scientific evidence to support our case continues to grow.

Read the judgment here: https://bit.ly/2P1sgG3
Summary: https://bit.ly/3vMWNrE

2 Comments on ““Today’s decision strengthens our resolve”

  1. According to the Court: “Neither this nor other medical evidence was found to have raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt. The Court was not entitled to reassess the findings of fact made by the former judge. Its role was confined to determining if there had been legal error. The Court held that the former judge had applied the correct legal test to the evidence and followed fair procedures in holding hearings and preparing his 500 page report.”
    The question is, do you read as I read ? For when I read this I hear that “Neither this nor other medical evidence was found to have raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt”. Raised doubt saying that neither this nor other medical evidence was found to have uplifted a reasonable doubt as to guilt . . . thus neither this nor that was uplifted to raise the probability of guilt . . meaning that science had nothing to do with it. This was not about reassessing the findings, this was to determine if there was legal error ? Why would there be legal error ? that is not the issue . . . the issue is one of error of judgement given the information available at the time !

    Like

  2. dudarec vs andrews appeal 2006 to high court the strand london.
    loss of a chance…hindsight in judgement…
    barrister for defence stephen boyd at shelbourne chambers .co.uk
    dudarec won appeal before 3 lords,
    this judgement is pertinant and precedent to presenting scientific evidence after trial.
    case is on internet as is stephen boyds email address.
    enquire at shelbourne chambers

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: