Bowraville: Still Fighting for Justice

even the peace suspect of killing all three children. Obviously, this is a devastating blow to the family. Once again they've been denied their day in court where they could seek justice for their children. Amy, You've been following this case for a long time, have spoken with the families a lot over the years. What was your reaction to yesterday.

So it felt shocking because for me, just witnessing how hard they have struggled and just the impact of these murders on not just immediate family, but extended family and extended communities over the past twenty seven years. I just thought, surely something has to happen, and unfortunately, I think we

saw the real being and anger come out. So the family's always, you know, it's almost been like one step forward and two steps back, because every wind they've had, there's always been a step back, and it's always been accompanied by really offensive guessed by those in power, and it's always been just accompanied with feeling that Australia doesn't really care and those who are ultimately responsible for this enduring injustice, which is the justice system the original police

investigation just don't seem to care. That just all builds up. So it was just a real let down, a real disappointment to hear that decision because it really felt, you know, things were actually going to fall place for the Bearable families finally after a long time. And I've been covering this case for about six years and so I've been up to Variable a few times. I've been at the majority of protests and the parliamentary inquiry and various processes

as this saga has continued. And yeah, it was just a real disappointment and I just really feel for the Faise, you know, who've waited so long just to be let down again and to feel like this may have been last shot at justice, But I know that the families will never give up and there'll always be avenues that they're going to push through. Giving up was never a question for them, So it's about what the strategy is next.

I think so. I think they still hope. But at the same time, this is a real blow to a lot of the families. I think Martin, there hasn't been a lot of detail about actually what the judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal means. And it's already a very complicated case. But you've read judgment and you've been able to process it. Can you give us, first just a brief summary about why the Court of Criminal Appeal has noted the Attorney General's at put back.

achieved something remarkable to get it this far. The fact is, what the Court of Criminal Appeal was deciding was the concept of double jeopardy, and in doing so, the family has pushed so hard to the point that the criminal justice system in New South Wales and in Australia has been forced for really one of the first times, to elect on this principle of double jeopardy and sudden underpinning of our system. And it's important to understand what double

jeopardy is. So the person police believe committed all three murders been put on trial twice individually for two of the separate cases, so once for Evelyn and once for Clinton, and they were separated by twelve years in nineteen ninety four the first trial and less than six And what the jeopardy basically says is that once a person has been acquitted of an offense, that they are protected by the principle of double jeppy and can't be tried again.

But what this doesn't take into consideration, of course, is that huge mistakes are made and that as we know with Aboriginal people in particular, and we know from this case that when these children had been murdered, the police treated it as a missing person's case in each situation, and so the proper investigative work that should lead to

a murder conviction was never done. In addition to that, at both trials, fundamental evidence that would have helped secure a can viction was not either tended to the court orred by the jury. So that's why this person, or at least one reason why this person, who is suspected by the police to have committed all the crimes, was acquitted.

So the important point that family has always maintained is that there needs to be justice, so that this fundamental principle of double jeopardy is fine ordinarily, but where justice has not been done, where the evidence exists, and where there has been failures of the system, that there needs to be a review. And this is essentially what the Court of Criminal Appeal was doing, was looking at in the pursuit of justice, was there the possibility to retry

this person. And it boiled down to one particular issue, which is that was the evidence available at the time of these trials, in particular one of the trials, So was the evidence that would be presented at a new trial to be considered fresh and compelling. Now, what the judgment basically says in Layman's terms is that the evidence wasn't fresh and compelling, and the restate that is because the evidence was seen by the court. But the important point is it was not seen by the jury. Some

of this evidence that is relevant was deemed inadmissible. And what was required for this process to be successful is for the court to be able to make a ruling that evidence that had previously been deemed inadmissible that would lead to either ensuring justice or the pursuit of justice, i e. That this was evidence that would show a person responsible further linked to a crime. It wasn't a

fishing expedition. This was accurate evidence, but that if that had been deemed inadmissible in the past some decades ago, that if a law had changed that would now see thatce be admissible and allowed in that that should now be deemed fresh evidence. But the reason why I believe the Court of Criminal Appeal has refused the application re trial is not because the evidence isn't fresh. It's not

because it's not compelling. It's that because the New South was parliament after the parliamentary inquiry just two years ago failed to make this change that would see and demand that the jury see the evidence that not be purely at the discretion of judge some twenty years ago, and that we maintain judges ruling all the way through. Because what makes fresh and compelling evidence is what's presented to a jury. It's no use if a judge sees it

and turns it away. As we know from Kevin Henry's case, there was evidence that was never printed. There was his forced confession where only certain ass jury as ruled by judge. The important part about this case is that you have three separate murders, and all of the only two sorry

how it individually. It's clear to just basic common sense that have murders of three children in the same location, committed in the same way, with the same prime suspect who the police themselves believed did it that the best chance of achieving justice is that all the evidence from all three crimes be presented. And that's never occurred. So what this was hoping that the Court of Criminal Appeal would allow a trial and that at least two of

the case would be heard together, if not all three. Instead, I think the failure of the new South Wales government to legislate that the jury the court able to hear fresh evidence, evidence that was denied to be seen by a jury in the past, is the failing that has resulted in this knock now.

Court of Criminal Criminal Appeal. So what would you say about the Attorney generals to that should it have been gone to the Niels Parliament first or how easy that the fact that the Attorney General has just sent straight away to the clarifying that legal definition, because that actually came up in the parliamentary inquiry into the family response to the murders, which went above and beyond its terms of reference and actually recommended clarifying exactly what you just said.

How would you see that the fact that it did go to the Court of Criminal Appeal before there legislative chape.

retry this individual, was a high possibility. And I think, in particular David Ubridge and no doubt his staff, having studied other jurisdictions around the world, particularly in the United king other common law jurisdictions, that what the examples show elsewhere is that if you don't make these legislative changes, you really don't leave the court with the ability to make such a big finding. Because really the principle of double jeopardy is such a cornerstone of our legal system.

So if you're going to ask a court to allow the principle to be not so much overturned in this case, but that another trial take place because of all the errors, because of fresh and compelling evidence, and because of the community's desire amand for justice, and the courts and the Parliament should be representing all of us as a community, then these changes needed to take place. I think what's

clear is a few things. One, the legal community in Australia has always campaigned behind claud against changes to things like double jeopardy. There is quite a conservative element inside the legal community in Australia, but in most countries where they don't want to see law changed, they particularly don't want to see these principles like double jeopardy changed, and

I think that plant to the Attorney General's decision. I also think that it was a very deliberate decision not to make these changes, these lisilative changes, because it would have taken a little bit of time to go changes for all sides of politics in the New South Wales Parliament to have their input, to seek advice from experts on what the ramifications might be. But these changes needed to be made, and if it took a little bit of time to get it right and worth getting it right.

The family has come this far twenty seven years, they are owed the Parliament takes that time. Instead, the Attorney General rushed to the Court of Kriminal Appeal and I think that was largely done because of the public attention that had been drawn to the case through a podcast. I think anytime the mainstream media picks us with it for a small period of time, politicians feel the need to act, and by acting quickly, they don't always make

the best decisions. Often their action is done simply to get the heat off their own back that's been caused by these issues being raised. Really, what needed to take place is for what was raised by David Shubridge at the time, what was recommended by the Parliamentary that did go above and beyond that across party lines, the individuals involved resaw what had happened here, that the families had been failed at every turn, that they'd done anything and everything.

You could ask a family who have suffered such horrific loss, the death and murder of their children, they'd done everything, and yet the system, the police, are courts, the DPP, the attorney and the Parliament had failed them. This was the chance, after the parliamentary inquiry right to take the time to ensure that before this everything was done right and the legislation the judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal to make a ruling to allow a retrial herders

could be retried. This is much as much a legal failure and a police failure. So I really think people need to start thinking about who they vote for. Who is going to take the tough decisions, not just the easy decisions when the mainstream media comes calling, Who's going to have the guts to say, I'm not going to rush. I'm going to get it right because that's what these kids deserve and that's what the families deserve. But we've seen a rush once again, and it means it leaves

the families in limbo again after twenty seven years. It's completely unacceptable.

community themselves. It was a child protection investigation, and the original police investigating it made crucial mistakes that you know, as you said before, other reason why it has been so hard to get the man accused before court yet again.

So you know, I was really disheartened this week to see that although there was greater coverage about it, the wider Australia just still sees Aboriginal children as disposable, and we saw that over in Perth of the two young Aboriginal boys who lost their life in the Swan River

as well after being chased by police. I think the wider issue as well as the way Aboriginal children are being seen, because to me, the idea that an alleged serial killer has not been brought before court yet again after twenty seven years is really disturbing and I don't think that would happen anywhere else. If you compare to Caitler, there were three white children who'd allegedly been killed by

one mare, you just wouldn't have that. There'd be a community outcry that would last more than just one day and more than just a couple of media articles. So I think it's that wider issue as well the courts have handled it and the way Parliament or the Attorney General has handled it, but also the facts that Australia still largely closes it seas in its eyes and devalues Aboriginal children is really sad because we've seen, you know,

particularly with legislative changes. You know, you look at the lockout laws and you look at all of the king hits in the middle of inner city Sydney, and that leads to legislative change which actually affects Aboriginal kids disproportionately in regional communities. So we see that legislative change can actually happen, but not when it comes to Aboriginal kids and Aboriginal victims.

and these incidents. These were children in Western Australia, like the children of Baarraville, and yet the police claim that they were jumping fences. No one in the media bothered to check if that was true. They just took the police's word for what the boys had done. And this was the worst that the police could come up with, that these boys had jumped fences. We don't kill people for jumping fences. And yet so far I've heard nothing from the West Australian government or the public that he's

going to seek to hold the police to account. Once again, it's the Aboriginal community and their families mourning a loss and being forced to carry the load of trying to get justice. When you look at the cases of all three Bauerville children, as you say, their deaths occurred across a five month period of time. Initially, the first few first cases were handled as they were missing persons, as

you said, community themselves were investigated. How did the police come to the conclusion before they'd done any serious investigation that it was a missing person's case. They came that conclusion because they have a preconceived notion of Aboriginal people. When they walk into Bauerville with that preconceived notion, they ensured that the likelihood of the families ever getting justice would be nil, and the likelihood that this individual could

kill again would be near on one hundred percent. You have to go into an engation with an open mind. All the evidence should have been collected. When you're talking about the murder of children. No stone should be left unturned. If this was three children in the suburbs of Sydney,

there would be marches on the street. And yet the attention is focused on the very families that had lost their little kids and the pressure was put on them, they weren't believed and the police continued to cock this up. There is a great likelihood that there is evidence that is yet to be discovered, that there is evidences that existed at the time that would have made these cases an absolute slam dunk that was never uncovered by the police because they were too busy focusing on the families.

Focusing on this being missing persons and Aboriginal children going walk about their preconceived ideas and racist views of Aboriginal people cost justice, but it also cost future lives because these didn't happen all on the same night detailings. These were done over a period of time. A brazen serial killer of children has to be the greatest threat that our society and our community faces. Who would deny that what we must protect most is the safety of our children,

of all children in our community right around Australia. And yet the very people we pay our tax dollars that we go to work for the police to protect us from these people. Failed the Beauerville families and have failed in Western Australia to the point that more young Aboriginal people are dead. It's the complete opposite of the way the system is supposed to work. They are supposed to protect,

not kill. And yet, as you say, where is the outrage, we have pockets of coverage whenever there is a parliamentary inquiry, when the families hold a protest, maybe some media in

the mainstream media will turn up. If we're going to stop the killing of Aboriginal children, if we're going to stop the killing of Aboriginal people in custody, the blatant murder of some like young Elijah in Western Australia who can be run down and the killer walking free today, then the rest of society has wake up and ask themselves this one question. Would they accept the same if it was their children? If you would, there's something deeply wrong with you If you wouldn't, Why do you allow

it for Aboriginal children. Why are Aboriginal children's lives disposable? Why are abige others forced to mourn their children without justice, and not only that treated in the first place, as if they could be suspects. This will only change when the broader public stops thinking the owners should be on Aboriginal people, starts taking responsibility for the police, a justice and political system, and a public that is indifferent to the killing and the violence against Aboriginal people.