WEBVTT - Another Aboriginal Man Innocent Inside

0:00:01.240 --> 0:00:01.400
<v Speaker 1>Good.

0:00:02.680 --> 0:00:06.080
<v Speaker 2>Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty

0:00:06.160 --> 0:00:08.480
<v Speaker 2>verdicts against all three defendants.

0:00:08.520 --> 0:00:11.119
<v Speaker 3>It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:12.480
<v Speaker 3>absolutely really patent.

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged a

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:15.080
<v Speaker 1>top on.

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:16.960
<v Speaker 2>A shallow mud bank and it fits through a river.

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 3>Basically, I think most of the people are used to

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:20.600
<v Speaker 3>me are good people.

0:00:20.680 --> 0:00:23.280
<v Speaker 2>I think a really important question we need to ask

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 2>is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 1>This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:32.440
<v Speaker 1>blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of

0:00:32.479 --> 0:00:36.240
<v Speaker 1>our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:38.840
<v Speaker 1>Amy Maguire and I'm.

0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 2>Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service.

0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:47.160
<v Speaker 2>And a warning, this series contains the names of deceased

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 2>peoples and has distressing content that might upset some listeners.

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 3>Welcome to episode fifty five of Curtain the Podcast. When

0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.040
<v Speaker 3>we started this podcast series more than two years ago,

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 3>we asked a question how many other Indigenous prisoners are innocent?

0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.440
<v Speaker 3>And along the way we've heard stories from around the country,

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.399
<v Speaker 3>and during that time we've seen people who are innocent,

0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:22.319
<v Speaker 3>like Jane Gibson be freed during that time. But over

0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:26.120
<v Speaker 3>the course of making this podcast, we heard about another

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 3>case in South Australia, one that has many similarities to

0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:36.319
<v Speaker 3>that of Kevin Henry. And it's such a troubling case

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:41.320
<v Speaker 3>that it's shocking that people like myself who look at

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:45.959
<v Speaker 3>these cases every single day and Aimy as a journalist,

0:01:46.200 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 3>we'd never heard of this case. It has received some

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 3>small coverage in South Australia, but this should be a

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 3>national story. The case is that of Derek Bromley, who

0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:03.760
<v Speaker 3>spent more than thirty four years in prison. Just like

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 3>Kevin Henry, He's always maintained his innocence, but just like

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:15.920
<v Speaker 3>Kevin Henry, he remains in prison. Amy, just briefly, I

0:02:15.919 --> 0:02:18.360
<v Speaker 3>guess to give people a background. We have spoken a

0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:22.120
<v Speaker 3>little bit about Derek's case, but just if you can

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 3>explain the basics of why Derek is in prison.

0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:33.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So, Derek Bromley is an Aboriginal man from South Australia.

0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 1>Back in nineteen eighty four, he had just been released

0:02:36.200 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 1>from prison for serving three years for being present while

0:02:40.080 --> 0:02:44.480
<v Speaker 1>a male was sexually assaulted and Derek did not perpetrate

0:02:44.520 --> 0:02:47.560
<v Speaker 1>that assault, but on the first night that he was released,

0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>he went into Adelaide just for a night out on

0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:53.920
<v Speaker 1>the town. Now, that night, on April third, nineteen eighty four,

0:02:54.840 --> 0:02:59.400
<v Speaker 1>a non indigenous man named Stephen Dukhozer died. His body

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>was found five days later in the River Torrens, which

0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 1>runs through the center of Adelaide. Now, the key witness

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 1>in the case was a man named Gary Carter who

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:15.560
<v Speaker 1>suffered from schizophrenia in paranoia and he implicated Derek Bromley.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:19.640
<v Speaker 1>He claimed that he saw Derek with Stephen Darkoza and

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:23.520
<v Speaker 1>he claimed that Derek assaulted him. Now, there were a

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of problems with that eyewitness in this eyewitness identification,

0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 1>the main problem of which was that this was a

0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 1>man who was suffering from severe paranoia and psychosis. There

0:03:38.040 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 1>was another reason that Derek Bromley was implicated and given

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 1>a very harsh sentence. It had to do with the

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 1>forensic pathologist, doctor Colin Monok, who was South Australia's chief

0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>forensic expert and has since been widely discredited. And doctor

0:03:57.440 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 1>Mannott claimed that there are a number of bruises and

0:03:59.720 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>cut on Stephen Dokoza's body which were consistent with an

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:07.119
<v Speaker 1>assault and He also claimed that Stephen Decoza's caused death

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:12.240
<v Speaker 1>was drowning. But those two key pillars that implicated Derek

0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Bromley and resulted in him serving so much time in jail.

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:19.359
<v Speaker 1>In fact, he's still in jail serving time over his sentence,

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:24.960
<v Speaker 1>like Kevin Henry, is credited by a series of experts.

0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:28.799
<v Speaker 1>So that's a very brief rundown of the case itself

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>Mardin for our listeners who may not know about it.

0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>But what actually has stood out to you and why

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:38.200
<v Speaker 1>do you believe that there are grounds to believe Derek

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Bromley's please of innocence.

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 3>I think the first thing you try and do is

0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:47.400
<v Speaker 3>look at what the evidence was that was presented in

0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:50.560
<v Speaker 3>court before you even go and look for new and

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:54.840
<v Speaker 3>fresh evidence that I believe has been found and uncovered.

0:04:55.440 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 3>And I think even based on what was presented in court,

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:05.680
<v Speaker 3>person could have convicted Derek beyond a reasonable doubt. And

0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:09.120
<v Speaker 3>the reason I say that is because there were already

0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 3>serious questions about mister Carter's mental health. He was the

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:20.240
<v Speaker 3>prime witness against Derek, and it's since been found by

0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 3>a series of psychiatrists that he was vulnerable to things

0:05:24.680 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 3>like suggestibility, that ideas could have been quite easily placed

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:36.040
<v Speaker 3>in his head, that were things that were just not true.

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:38.800
<v Speaker 3>And so you go and look at can we find

0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:43.279
<v Speaker 3>something that he said that doesn't appear to be correct. Well,

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:47.320
<v Speaker 3>straight away he places Derek Bromley at the scene, but

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 3>he doesn't really know Derek. And that's always a problem

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.239
<v Speaker 3>with an eye witness. How well do they know a person,

0:05:54.360 --> 0:05:58.520
<v Speaker 3>because that helps us grade how well they'll know whether

0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 3>they've seen someone or not. Now, a person who knew

0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 3>Derek much better, a prison support worker, had seen Derek

0:06:07.200 --> 0:06:12.160
<v Speaker 3>earlier in the night, and Derek was wearing casual clothing

0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:17.520
<v Speaker 3>in Adelaide. Now, both the taxi driver and to a

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:21.080
<v Speaker 3>certain extent mister Carter, who were in a cab with

0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:25.280
<v Speaker 3>this taxi driver on the way to where the murder happened,

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:30.720
<v Speaker 3>describe Derek as wearing a white, flashy suit, sort of

0:06:30.800 --> 0:06:35.040
<v Speaker 3>dressed like someone out of the twenties. Now, people who

0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 3>know the area in Adelaide where this was a nightclub

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:43.480
<v Speaker 3>district have an idea of who this person might have been,

0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:48.839
<v Speaker 3>a local drug dealer. It wasn't Derek Bromley. So straight

0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:52.560
<v Speaker 3>away we have the eyewitness. Whether you believe it or

0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:56.039
<v Speaker 3>not really doesn't matter. The question you have to ask

0:06:56.080 --> 0:07:01.320
<v Speaker 3>yourself is is the evidence compelling beyond Deresa doubt. We

0:07:01.360 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 3>already have someone who knows Derek much better than the

0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 3>other people there saying that description doesn't match Derek and

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:13.200
<v Speaker 3>doesn't match what he was wearing earlier that night. And

0:07:13.240 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 3>when Derek was arrested by police, he was still wearing

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:21.360
<v Speaker 3>the same clothes he was seen earlier the day before

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.120
<v Speaker 3>in by that prison support officer. He was never seen

0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:29.760
<v Speaker 3>by anyone who can confirm his identity in that white suit.

0:07:30.960 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 3>Then I think we have to look at the issue

0:07:33.400 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 3>of doctor Mannock. And we've discussed previously about Colin Mannock

0:07:40.600 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 3>on this podcast and a horrific autopsy that you almost

0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:49.640
<v Speaker 3>can't call it an autopsy he performed on an Aboriginal

0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 3>person in an Aboriginal community. I'll link to that podcast

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:57.200
<v Speaker 3>because I don't want to go through those details again

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 3>because they are quite horrific. But not only did doctor

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:07.080
<v Speaker 3>Mannock behave in this way, not only has a number

0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:13.760
<v Speaker 3>of people like Henry Keoh been found innocent and had

0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:18.240
<v Speaker 3>their convictions overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal because

0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:22.480
<v Speaker 3>of the shoddy work of doctor Manock. Doctor Mannock was

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 3>at the time South Australia's chief forensic pathologist, but as

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:32.480
<v Speaker 3>has been uncovered, there is no record showing that doctor

0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:36.880
<v Speaker 3>Mannock has the qualifications that would qualify him to even

0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 3>be a pathologist, let alone the leading one in the state.

0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:45.520
<v Speaker 3>And so then you can look at Derek's case again

0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 3>and look at the pathology work. Some of the conclusions

0:08:50.440 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 3>doctor Manock comes to are absolutely ridiculous and a series

0:08:57.840 --> 0:09:03.480
<v Speaker 3>of actually qualified forensic pathologists have rejected them out of hand.

0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 3>One of the big problems in a case like this

0:09:07.160 --> 0:09:10.040
<v Speaker 3>where a person has been in the water, in this

0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:14.679
<v Speaker 3>case for five days, is it's almost impossible to determine

0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:18.520
<v Speaker 3>whether they were conscious or unconscious when they entered the water,

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:25.119
<v Speaker 3>if drowning was the cause of death, when certain injuries

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:29.440
<v Speaker 3>took place, and of course no forensic material was able

0:09:29.480 --> 0:09:33.400
<v Speaker 3>to be lifted from the body, and all of this

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:37.280
<v Speaker 3>means that you can't give an exact time as to

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 3>when the deceased departed or was placed in the water,

0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:46.840
<v Speaker 3>So you cannot place Derek Bromley at the crime scene

0:09:47.080 --> 0:09:51.040
<v Speaker 3>at a convincing time. You cannot come up with a

0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:54.720
<v Speaker 3>convincing cause of death, so you can't even allege how

0:09:54.800 --> 0:10:01.360
<v Speaker 3>Derek has supposed to have killed this person. And because

0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:06.880
<v Speaker 3>you can't lift any forensic material, you can't override shoddy

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:13.760
<v Speaker 3>eyewitnesses and say categorically that Derek was there. So you have,

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:19.000
<v Speaker 3>just like Kevin Henry, you have no forensic evidence linking

0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:27.839
<v Speaker 3>Derek whatsoever. You have seriously flawed eyewitness testimony in this case. Really,

0:10:27.880 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 3>you have someone who should never have been giving witness

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:33.760
<v Speaker 3>testimony on the stand. In Kevin's you don't even have

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.440
<v Speaker 3>anyone get on the stand who puts Kevin at the

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:41.840
<v Speaker 3>time of death with Linda. In fact, we know he

0:10:42.000 --> 0:10:45.439
<v Speaker 3>was elsewhere. And these are the two key things you're

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:49.280
<v Speaker 3>looking for. Did the person commit the actual crime that

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:53.080
<v Speaker 3>can be proven forensically and do people place them at

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:57.080
<v Speaker 3>the scene, And in both cases you can't. And yet

0:10:58.480 --> 0:11:01.760
<v Speaker 3>the thing I really want to point out about Derek's

0:11:01.760 --> 0:11:08.280
<v Speaker 3>case in particular is that while others have been freed

0:11:09.320 --> 0:11:14.880
<v Speaker 3>on far less fresh and compelling evidence, Derek remains in prison.

0:11:16.000 --> 0:11:20.400
<v Speaker 3>The only difference being Derek is aboriginal.

0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:23.320
<v Speaker 2>Martin.

0:11:23.360 --> 0:11:26.200
<v Speaker 1>You outlined a lot of the similarities between Kevin and

0:11:26.280 --> 0:11:29.560
<v Speaker 1>Derek's cases just then. One of the key similarities I

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:33.200
<v Speaker 1>found is that obviously there were victims. Both victims in

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:37.120
<v Speaker 1>both cases were found in waterways, and both relied on,

0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>as you said, really deficient forensic pathology reports around particularly

0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:48.199
<v Speaker 1>the cause of death, which Growth said were drowning. Derek's case,

0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>Derek was convicted around nineteen eighty four nineteen eighty five,

0:11:51.840 --> 0:11:55.600
<v Speaker 1>and Kevin was convicted for a murder that happened in

0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:59.880
<v Speaker 1>nine ninety one. Was there something specific to that time period?

0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:04.440
<v Speaker 1>Was the technology or the science up to scratch at

0:12:04.440 --> 0:12:07.720
<v Speaker 1>that point? Is that Does that play any part in

0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:10.960
<v Speaker 1>how these termen have been convicted based on forensics?

0:12:12.480 --> 0:12:16.600
<v Speaker 3>I think it definitely does. And history and analysis of

0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:21.040
<v Speaker 3>these sort of cases tells us that all through the

0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:26.880
<v Speaker 3>eighties and the early nineties, forensic pathologists were around the

0:12:26.920 --> 0:12:31.439
<v Speaker 3>world and usually in the criminal justice system, inflating their

0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:36.920
<v Speaker 3>ability to determine certain causes of death. So in the

0:12:36.960 --> 0:12:42.840
<v Speaker 3>eighties and nineties, particularly causes of arson and drowning were

0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:47.160
<v Speaker 3>overinflated as to the ability of a forensic pathologist to

0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 3>say how and if a person drowned and when in

0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:56.360
<v Speaker 3>a time period they drowned, And similar with arson cases

0:12:56.360 --> 0:12:58.360
<v Speaker 3>as to when a fire was set and how it

0:12:58.480 --> 0:13:02.679
<v Speaker 3>was caused. The big difference is not only has the

0:13:02.720 --> 0:13:08.520
<v Speaker 3>technology improved, not only has the forensic science improved, but

0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:13.000
<v Speaker 3>what you will hear all forensic pathologists say now about drowning,

0:13:13.640 --> 0:13:16.400
<v Speaker 3>particularly when the body has been in the water for

0:13:16.480 --> 0:13:19.920
<v Speaker 3>a considerable period of time, in this case five days,

0:13:20.640 --> 0:13:24.800
<v Speaker 3>you can't prove absolutely drowning. All you can do is

0:13:24.840 --> 0:13:30.360
<v Speaker 3>eliminate everything else. So you might eliminate blunt force trauma,

0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:35.800
<v Speaker 3>you might eliminate things like blood loss, a natural cause

0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:40.520
<v Speaker 3>of death such as heart attack. But what you cannot do,

0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:45.040
<v Speaker 3>and this remains true to this day, is simply find

0:13:45.360 --> 0:13:50.640
<v Speaker 3>that someone drowned without ruling everything else out first. And

0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 3>the forensic pathologists in both Kevin and Derek's case did

0:13:55.160 --> 0:13:59.720
<v Speaker 3>not do that. They both came up categorically stating that

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 3>both Winda and the victim in Derek's case drowned, and

0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:07.680
<v Speaker 3>they did it based on junk science, science that just

0:14:07.679 --> 0:14:11.440
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't be accepted in a court of law today. And

0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 3>I think that alone should cast an enormous amount of

0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:20.760
<v Speaker 3>doubt over both convictions. That the evidence that was presented

0:14:20.840 --> 0:14:25.200
<v Speaker 3>and the way it was presented is not considered science anymore.

0:14:26.000 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 3>It's no different scientifically to saying the Earth is flat,

0:14:30.800 --> 0:14:34.000
<v Speaker 3>which people once said. What they said in court is

0:14:34.280 --> 0:14:36.760
<v Speaker 3>just not true to the way we know it today,

0:14:37.240 --> 0:14:39.880
<v Speaker 3>and it doesn't stack up with any of the other

0:14:39.920 --> 0:14:43.920
<v Speaker 3>evidence that was presented against either Kevin or Derek.

0:14:44.400 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 1>And it seems that from what you've outlined, Derek Bromley

0:14:47.480 --> 0:14:51.000
<v Speaker 1>has a very good case but was subsequently not back

0:14:51.040 --> 0:14:54.760
<v Speaker 1>by the Court of Criminal Appeal only this month, them

0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:57.920
<v Speaker 1>very quickly, and we've seen in South Australia that other

0:14:58.000 --> 0:15:02.840
<v Speaker 1>cases like you mentioned, namely Henry Keo who was exonerated

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:06.920
<v Speaker 1>after serving twenty years in prison for a crime that

0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:11.120
<v Speaker 1>very likely did not happen, that actually went through a

0:15:11.160 --> 0:15:14.440
<v Speaker 1>couple of years ago. And you mentioned also about the

0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.040
<v Speaker 1>fact that you know Derek Bromley is an Aboriginal man.

0:15:17.080 --> 0:15:19.520
<v Speaker 1>But it seems that the weight of evidence is just

0:15:20.240 --> 0:15:23.560
<v Speaker 1>so much that they should just send it back to court.

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 1>What reasons do you think the Court of Chriminal Appeal

0:15:26.680 --> 0:15:31.480
<v Speaker 1>would have had to just knock back that application of

0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 1>believe just so quickly when they've seen previous cases like

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.280
<v Speaker 1>the case of Henry Kio go through on the same statute.

0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:42.680
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it's a really good question, and what we have

0:15:42.800 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 3>to remind people. Is the reason that this is even

0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:50.840
<v Speaker 3>an option for Derek is that doctor Mannock was so

0:15:50.960 --> 0:15:55.440
<v Speaker 3>discredited the forensic pathologist, that South Australia had to pass

0:15:55.560 --> 0:16:00.400
<v Speaker 3>a special law allowing people who'd been convicted previously in

0:16:00.440 --> 0:16:05.000
<v Speaker 3>these sorts of cases, these serious cases of murder, to

0:16:05.720 --> 0:16:08.480
<v Speaker 3>appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals so that they

0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:14.160
<v Speaker 3>could have this new, fresh and compelling evidence heard. Whereas

0:16:14.200 --> 0:16:18.600
<v Speaker 3>in cases like Henry Keo's that you've mentioned, the court

0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:23.160
<v Speaker 3>found that the evidence was fresh and compelling. In Derek's

0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:28.960
<v Speaker 3>they didn't. Now I'll make two statements about that. One is,

0:16:29.360 --> 0:16:33.720
<v Speaker 3>in my professional opinion, Derek Bromley has more fresh and

0:16:33.800 --> 0:16:38.280
<v Speaker 3>compelling evidence in his favor than Henry Keo. That's not

0:16:38.360 --> 0:16:42.200
<v Speaker 3>to say Henry's case shouldn't have got up. It should have.

0:16:42.560 --> 0:16:45.560
<v Speaker 3>It's just that Derek has far more to work with

0:16:46.040 --> 0:16:49.360
<v Speaker 3>and far more evidence that he's both fresh and compelling

0:16:49.840 --> 0:16:54.000
<v Speaker 3>as to his guilt and involvement in the crime. But

0:16:54.120 --> 0:16:58.600
<v Speaker 3>the other issue I think is that Henry Keo's case

0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:03.160
<v Speaker 3>had garnered a great deal of media attention, and there

0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:07.080
<v Speaker 3>was a lot of coverage of both his first conviction

0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:10.199
<v Speaker 3>and then of all of his appeals and everything that

0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:13.800
<v Speaker 3>led up to that. And while courts will say they

0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:17.360
<v Speaker 3>are immune to that sort of outside pressure, I think

0:17:17.400 --> 0:17:22.240
<v Speaker 3>it's pretty clear that when you have more evidence in

0:17:22.320 --> 0:17:27.040
<v Speaker 3>Derek's favor but he's knocked back as opposed to Henry,

0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:30.800
<v Speaker 3>who had all this pressure, that that certainly must have

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:33.639
<v Speaker 3>played a part. And I guess the last thing we

0:17:33.720 --> 0:17:38.360
<v Speaker 3>have to say is the court was not being asked

0:17:39.040 --> 0:17:44.160
<v Speaker 3>to find Derek guilty or innocent. All Derek was asking

0:17:44.240 --> 0:17:48.720
<v Speaker 3>for was for a new trial, a chance to present

0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:54.280
<v Speaker 3>this evidence. Why after thirty four years, were a man

0:17:54.560 --> 0:17:58.960
<v Speaker 3>who has maintained his innocence that whole time, in fact,

0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:06.560
<v Speaker 3>could finally confess, do parole programs and walk free, but

0:18:06.600 --> 0:18:11.800
<v Speaker 3>he's refused to do it. That's how positive he is

0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:15.280
<v Speaker 3>about his innocence. He knows he didn't do it because

0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:18.400
<v Speaker 3>he wasn't there, and he didn't do it. The evidence

0:18:18.440 --> 0:18:21.320
<v Speaker 3>shows he could not and should not have been found

0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:25.200
<v Speaker 3>guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and all he is asking

0:18:25.280 --> 0:18:28.919
<v Speaker 3>for is a chance to present that new, fresh and

0:18:28.960 --> 0:18:32.680
<v Speaker 3>compelling evidence to a court. And what I find most

0:18:32.720 --> 0:18:37.560
<v Speaker 3>egregious by the decision is that this wasn't a court

0:18:37.680 --> 0:18:43.320
<v Speaker 3>saying we uphold the predest decision, or that we find

0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.199
<v Speaker 3>you innocent based on the new evidence. This was a

0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:49.480
<v Speaker 3>court saying we will not even look at new evidence.

0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:54.240
<v Speaker 3>We will not consider that a mistake has happened, where

0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:59.360
<v Speaker 3>the same forensic pathologist was involved in making serious other

0:18:59.400 --> 0:19:03.359
<v Speaker 3>mistakes that saw innocent people go to jail for decades.

0:19:04.280 --> 0:19:09.000
<v Speaker 3>I think that's unconscionable and I hope in the future

0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:14.520
<v Speaker 3>Derek's final appeals opportunity to the High Court is successful

0:19:14.800 --> 0:19:17.959
<v Speaker 3>because for a court to say we'll keep our eyes

0:19:18.160 --> 0:19:22.720
<v Speaker 3>closed to evidence while a man sits in prison for

0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:26.840
<v Speaker 3>a crime he didn't do, is the worst failure the

0:19:26.960 --> 0:19:28.120
<v Speaker 3>justice system can make.

0:19:29.359 --> 0:19:32.360
<v Speaker 1>And the other thing I find interesting Martin, just hearing

0:19:32.800 --> 0:19:35.440
<v Speaker 1>you talk about South Austraia and the very different set

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:39.119
<v Speaker 1>of circumstances down there, is that obviously in Queensland we

0:19:39.160 --> 0:19:42.720
<v Speaker 1>do not have that statue. We don't have that ability

0:19:43.240 --> 0:19:45.520
<v Speaker 1>to go back to the Court of Criminal Appeal in

0:19:45.560 --> 0:19:49.080
<v Speaker 1>relation to fresh and compelling evidence. What would have to

0:19:49.119 --> 0:19:51.840
<v Speaker 1>happen in relation to Kevin's case.

0:19:53.119 --> 0:19:57.200
<v Speaker 3>It's a really important point because some people have raised

0:19:57.840 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 3>with us, why don't we go down the same path

0:20:01.359 --> 0:20:05.960
<v Speaker 3>that Derek's legal team has gone well in Queensland. It's

0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:10.960
<v Speaker 3>just not an avenue that's open. You cannot file a

0:20:10.960 --> 0:20:13.840
<v Speaker 3>bid with the Court of Criminal Appeal for this fresh

0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:17.160
<v Speaker 3>and compelling evidence that we have uncovered to be heard.

0:20:17.480 --> 0:20:21.640
<v Speaker 3>It's just not a possibility in Queensland. And sadly, as

0:20:21.680 --> 0:20:26.000
<v Speaker 3>we've seen for Derek, while it works for non Indigenous people,

0:20:26.119 --> 0:20:30.440
<v Speaker 3>this change in the South Australian law, even this change

0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:34.000
<v Speaker 3>has not worked for Derek, and so he's sat and

0:20:34.119 --> 0:20:38.080
<v Speaker 3>waited every single day in prison while his legal team

0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:41.200
<v Speaker 3>have worked their guts out and have done a great job,

0:20:42.160 --> 0:20:46.800
<v Speaker 3>but still the legal system fails him. And so I

0:20:46.840 --> 0:20:50.719
<v Speaker 3>think we have to come to another conclusion, which is

0:20:50.800 --> 0:20:56.240
<v Speaker 3>that people like Derek and Kevin require mass community support

0:20:57.320 --> 0:21:00.760
<v Speaker 3>if the criminal justice system that previously failed them, that

0:21:00.920 --> 0:21:05.320
<v Speaker 3>previously failed their victims or their alleged victims who have

0:21:05.440 --> 0:21:08.520
<v Speaker 3>never got justice because the wrong people are in jail.

0:21:09.880 --> 0:21:13.240
<v Speaker 3>We see by the example of Henry Keo, we see

0:21:13.280 --> 0:21:17.560
<v Speaker 3>by the example of Andrew Mallard in Western Australia, in

0:21:17.680 --> 0:21:22.359
<v Speaker 3>Jane's case more recently, that the only way justice is

0:21:22.440 --> 0:21:29.439
<v Speaker 3>done is to apply vast public pressure, and that even

0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:33.840
<v Speaker 3>new evidence as we've presented in Kevin's case, as could

0:21:33.880 --> 0:21:36.640
<v Speaker 3>have been made available and was to the court had

0:21:36.680 --> 0:21:40.640
<v Speaker 3>they chose to consider it. In Derrek's that they will

0:21:40.640 --> 0:21:43.560
<v Speaker 3>look away and do nothing. And I just want to

0:21:43.560 --> 0:21:48.479
<v Speaker 3>add this about both Derek and Kevin. Derek, as a

0:21:48.480 --> 0:21:53.159
<v Speaker 3>young Aboriginal child, was snatched away from his family. He

0:21:53.320 --> 0:21:58.240
<v Speaker 3>was targeted throughout his life as we know, and sent

0:21:58.280 --> 0:22:03.080
<v Speaker 3>to prison as a young man for simply being present

0:22:03.200 --> 0:22:07.400
<v Speaker 3>when a crime was committed, not a crime he partook

0:22:07.440 --> 0:22:11.720
<v Speaker 3>in in any way, He was simply present during that time.

0:22:12.160 --> 0:22:16.080
<v Speaker 3>He was incarcerated at the Yatla Labor Prison, a prison

0:22:16.160 --> 0:22:21.760
<v Speaker 3>that no longer exists. Such were the hellish conditions and

0:22:21.840 --> 0:22:26.080
<v Speaker 3>remember the word labor prison. That's not what a prison

0:22:26.160 --> 0:22:30.280
<v Speaker 3>is supposed to be in a country like Australia. You

0:22:30.320 --> 0:22:35.080
<v Speaker 3>don't force people to work as slaves. And Derek fought

0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:38.000
<v Speaker 3>back against that. He was one of the key protesters

0:22:39.640 --> 0:22:44.719
<v Speaker 3>and he spoke outwardly about his treatment. We also know

0:22:44.840 --> 0:22:48.879
<v Speaker 3>that Kevin had a childhood and a young adult life

0:22:49.000 --> 0:22:53.040
<v Speaker 3>of being targeted by police and being brutalized by corrections

0:22:53.080 --> 0:22:58.040
<v Speaker 3>officers just the same. In Derek's case, the police and

0:22:58.080 --> 0:23:03.800
<v Speaker 3>corrective services had said they get him back in Kevin's case,

0:23:04.280 --> 0:23:06.640
<v Speaker 3>as we know, with so many people who were present

0:23:07.080 --> 0:23:10.560
<v Speaker 3>that night, they were hounded and hounded by the police

0:23:10.960 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 3>until some ended up in prison and some tragically took

0:23:14.840 --> 0:23:18.760
<v Speaker 3>their own lives. So not only is the difference between

0:23:18.840 --> 0:23:22.920
<v Speaker 3>someone like Derek and Henry key Oh or Kevin and

0:23:22.920 --> 0:23:27.280
<v Speaker 3>Andrew Mallard the fact that they're being judged in a

0:23:27.320 --> 0:23:31.879
<v Speaker 3>court of law differently because they're Aboriginal, and that the

0:23:31.920 --> 0:23:36.600
<v Speaker 3>evidence is not considered, it's that the first contact they

0:23:36.680 --> 0:23:39.840
<v Speaker 3>had with the state, the first contact they had with

0:23:39.920 --> 0:23:44.080
<v Speaker 3>the criminal justice system, was because they were criminalized because

0:23:44.160 --> 0:23:48.440
<v Speaker 3>they were Aboriginal. It's the only crime they really ever committed.

0:23:49.560 --> 0:23:52.520
<v Speaker 3>And until we wake up to that fact and realize

0:23:52.560 --> 0:23:56.720
<v Speaker 3>that once an innocent person is in prison has been

0:23:56.840 --> 0:24:00.919
<v Speaker 3>through the criminal justice system, getting them out and removing

0:24:00.960 --> 0:24:06.520
<v Speaker 3>them from that deadly state apparatus is almost impossible. Look

0:24:06.560 --> 0:24:12.520
<v Speaker 3>at Miss dw she died in custody. She was criminalized

0:24:12.600 --> 0:24:16.679
<v Speaker 3>because of some small unpaid fines despite being the victim

0:24:16.760 --> 0:24:20.520
<v Speaker 3>of domestic violence. Just this week, we've seen a victim

0:24:20.520 --> 0:24:25.840
<v Speaker 3>of domestic violence be placed in handcuffs and taken to

0:24:25.880 --> 0:24:31.640
<v Speaker 3>prison because she was aboriginal. For no other reason, could

0:24:31.680 --> 0:24:36.360
<v Speaker 3>anyone argue. So when you start by criminalized people purely

0:24:36.400 --> 0:24:39.160
<v Speaker 3>because of who they are, we will continue to have

0:24:39.240 --> 0:24:43.679
<v Speaker 3>this problem. And as Derek's case, and as Kevin's case

0:24:43.800 --> 0:24:48.080
<v Speaker 3>continues to prove, despite all the evidence, despite the most

0:24:48.200 --> 0:24:54.679
<v Speaker 3>modern forensic science, despite the witnesses being disproven, Kevin and

0:24:54.720 --> 0:25:00.119
<v Speaker 3>Derek remain in prison. So what we're left with is

0:25:00.280 --> 0:25:02.439
<v Speaker 3>not the ability to turn to the courts who have

0:25:02.520 --> 0:25:05.919
<v Speaker 3>failed Kevin and who this year have now failed Derek

0:25:06.040 --> 0:25:10.520
<v Speaker 3>despite welcome changes. Once again, it shows what we've been

0:25:10.560 --> 0:25:14.960
<v Speaker 3>pushing for is to expose the sheer number of Aboriginal

0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:19.360
<v Speaker 3>people who are innocent and incarcerated, and not for them

0:25:19.400 --> 0:25:22.520
<v Speaker 3>to have to wait for years and years of appeals,

0:25:23.480 --> 0:25:26.480
<v Speaker 3>but for them to be pardoned by the state governors

0:25:26.520 --> 0:25:28.920
<v Speaker 3>who have the power to do it tomorrow.

0:25:29.840 --> 0:25:32.159
<v Speaker 1>That was episode fifty five of Curtain