A seminar by Academics for Justice held at the University of NSW last month took a close look at the Hilton Hotel bombing of Tim Anderson and concluded that justice had not been done. TONI PAYNE reports.
The guilty verdict against Tim Anderson is a miscarriage of justice. This was the only conclusion to be drawn after listening to speakers who discussed both the general issue of miscarriages of justice and the evidence used against Tim Anderson.
Paul Wilson, from the Australian Institute of Criminology, opened the proceedings with a paper on the law enforcement and judicial systems, which contain features conducive to miscarriages of justice:
1. suspect police procedures, including unethical behaviour, suppressing of information, encouraging witnesses to change their mind, verballing and planting of evidence;
2. incompetent police investigations;
3. the nature of evidence, which can include mistaken eyewitness evidence and the biased presentation of expert forensic evidence;
4. unreliable police/prison informers, who can easily be threatened because of their vulnerable position within the system;
5. media pressure for quick action and unfair stereotyping of defendants;
6. decisions by public officials, who seem to have a "win at all costs" mentality once the decision to prosecute has been made.
All these features are present in the Hilton Hotel bombing case.
Irish precedents
Tom Mollomby, a practising barrister, discussed two well-known Irish cases: the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. In both cases signed confessions formed the major evidence. The confessions, claimed by the defendants to have been extracted after bashings, had many substantive inconsistencies between them. Police investigations had also been less than thorough.
However, the major factor of these miscarriages of justice, Mollomby asserted, was the fact that the judges suffered from an idealised view of the world: police don't lie, and in any case, appeals courts can prevent injustices.
Dave Brown, of UNSW's School of Law, spoke on the growth industry in prison informants. Given the vulnerable position of prisoners within the system, we must be wary of the use of privileges and/or immunities (or threats of their withdrawal) as incentives for prisoners who give evidence. This may also be seen as a way for the police to overcome the use of the "verbal".
Placed in the context of Yabsley's repressive prison regime, with its use of prison informants must be a cause for concern.
Flawed evidence
Russell Hogg, of Macquarie University's Law School, discussed the evidence against Anderson. The crown's case rests largely on the evidence of Ray Denning and Evan Pederick, both prison informants. Their evidence is highly problematic.
Ray Denning, a "professional" prison informer, alleged that Anderson confessed to him on three separate occasions whilst in jail. The first two confessions were allegedly on the same day. The second confession, Denning claimed, was made over the toilet "phone" system and therefore other prisoners (up to 10) would have been able to hear it. A search of jail records showed that Anderson and Denning were not in the same jail at the same time on the third occasion. Denning's evidence does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Evan Pederick's evidence has been shown to contain numerous inconsistencies. It has been changed on many occasions in order to fit known facts.
When Pederick first went to Queensland police with his confession (implicating Anderson), the police released him after questioning, not believing him. The NSW police, however, obviously formed a different opinion, which may well have been influenced by their partisan role. This part of the crown's case also fails to stand up under scrutiny.
Jane Mussett, a speaker from the Campaign to Expose the Frame-Up of Tim Anderson (CEFTA), argued that the behaviour of the crown, in modifying Pederick's evidence, and of the director of public prosecutions in not being impartial, was crucial in Anderson being found guilty. Juries' decisions are only as fair as the system within which they are made — which brings us back to the points made by earlier speakers about the inadequacies of the system.
Andrew Lohrey gave a linguistic analysis of Pederick's evidence and interviews with police. He found that the Queensland police, who did not believe Pederick's story, asked far fewer leading questions than the NSW police, who obviously had a hidden agenda in directing Pederick's evidence. Lohrey's analysis showed that 18 significant amendments were made to Pederick's story in order to hide glaring discrepancies between his evidence and the known facts.
Terry Griffiths, a victim of the Hilton Hotel bombing and former policeman, recounted what happened in the hours preceding the explosion, and his injuries as a result of it, reminding everyone that there is a personal side to what occurred. Griffiths still has not been properly compensated for his injuries, even after years of writing to politicians and using the court system. He reinforced the need to search for the truth about what happened so that all parties can be fairly compensated.