Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just absolutely really coming.
Blood on his clothing the day after the alleged attimp.
On a shallow mud bank and it fits through river. Basically, I think most of the people are used to me, there are good people. I think a really important question we need to ask is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm Amy Maguire and.
I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner Support Service. Our producer is Paul Watts. Music by Clint Curtis and produced in collaboration with the Brisbane Indigenous Media Association and a warning. This series contains the names of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset listeners.
Welcome to Episode ten of Curtain. Over the past year, Martin and I have been investigating the case of an Aboriginal man who was locked up for murder in rock Hampton and Central Queensland, all the way back in nineteen ninety one. Now we started this podcast series by telling you how we began this investigation, and it all started with an interview that Martin gave me on the Aboriginal radio Current Affashion Let's Talk on ninety eight point nine
in Brisbane. So we thought for our last episode before the Christmas break, we'd go back to the start and end to this year with yet another interview looking at what we've learned, what this story of Kevin Henry has taught us about the justice system in Australia. Martin, You've had a long history looking into the justice system, not just in Australia but overseas. But has this case changed your views on.
I think, if anything, it's entrenched many of my views, particularly around the problems of the way Aboriginal people are treated, not just in the justice system, but by the police, politically,
the media and all those issues. And for me, this is the first time where I've been able to examine a case, I guess more objectively, not playing so much of an active role, but standing back and really being able to just look at the history and everything that surrounds it so to be able to hear from experts as we have to be able to really delve into the history of Rockhampton, the people involved, the community involved.
It's really taught me a lot more than what I thought I knew, and unfortunately, I think what I've learned is that even though I thought it was bad, really bad, it's actually a lot worse, and that even in twenty sixteen, we really haven't changed anything in that whole twenty five years since Kevin was first imprisoned and since that awful day.
Do you remember what your first thoughts were when you started to look into this case of Kevin Henry.
I think firstly, I was always conscious of the possibility of Indigenous prisoners in Australia being innocent and serving very long sentences. I think it's one thing when someone does three or six months for something they didn't do, and that obviously is still terrible. Any day in prison for
a crime you didn't commit is too long. But this was one of the first cases where I was able to really explore that further, analyze whether Kevin had had a fair trial, analyze the evidence forensically and scientifically from a legal basis, discuss it with experts, discuss it with colleagues, and I think it just meant that my suspicions around the issue of just how many innocent Indigenous prisoners there
could be. I think my fear was realized with just how poorly the whole system handled this case and so many others that we now know about and have always known about.
It's obviously such a stiph's case, I guess, and there's so many barriers against us, particularly you know the time that has passed since this tragic murder actually happened. But how when did you have any hesitation about taking it on because it's such a horrendous case that we could find out ultimately that what we're what we're looking into, there was nothing there. I guess when did you start to realize that there was actually something there or what
you thought there was something there. Yeah.
I think that's really important in any of these issues, that just because somebody claims they're innocent doesn't mean that they are. So I always start from looking at the facts, and first you want to analyze did a person have a fair trial? Then if you can be sure that the trial was at least suspecting some way or there
were problems with the trial. Then you can also look at the facts that were presented at trial and the facts that you know to be true that you can find out forensic evidence, statements that were never tended to the court that might paint a different picture. So I think it was really more a process rather being convinced
at one moment. Is that more and more as I investigated, the more I learned about the case, once I'd finished reading all the transcripts of the trial, I think it was just a gradual process of so many flaws that eventually you can't come to any other conclusion that Kevin Henry did not have a fair trial.
We were recapping for our listeners just to refresh their memory as we go into the new year. But here describe what were the biggest flaws do you think that came out of your investigation back into the trial.
I think they're probably threefold. The first flow is that there is no scientific or forensic evidence that links Kevin Henry to the murder in any way, and straight away that's problematic, I think for any one listening who either works in the law or is familiar with these sort of cases, or perhaps has even just seen them on TV. We are used to being told of forensic evidence, at least something that links that person directly and physically to the crime scene and to the events that took place,
and that's totally missing. So that was the first thing, and I was actually deeply surprised that that didn't exist. I thought that would be a hurdle that would perhaps have to be crossed, and the fact that that evidence just didn't exist is perhaps the most troubling piece of evidence of all. And that leads to the police investigation, which is the second issue that I have with all
of this. It's the way the police handled things from the start, and I think very early on, a deep concern I had was that an Aboriginal woman had been murdered. We know she'd been assaulted in a brutal fashion, and yet the police were completely cavalier in their approach to
their investigation. There seemed to be no concern on their behalf of handling this matter in a sensitive way, of following procedure and protocol to ensure that she and her family would get justice and that the right person would be eventually found guilty and that everyone who knew Linda would have some closure at least in terms of knowing
what had happened. And finally, I think the third thing was the failure of the justice system, and that's a failure that I think is perpetrated against all Aboriginal people in Australia, and in this case, it was perpetrated against the Aboriginal community of Rockhampton in that people who had no involvement at all were rounded up and harassed by police,
often for months and months. I think the way the justice system handled this, with multiple people being charged in different circumstances, with people being brought to court and their lawyers not being briefed, with lawyers chopping and changing, with barristers arriving on the day, with judges having to rule pieces of evidence inadmissible because of police behavior, with judges having to give special instructions to the jury that should not have needed to be given, and all of this
relates to the fact that all involved were Aboriginal. I think those three issues, the lack of forensic evidence, the way the police behaved, and the way the justice system operates. So the three most troubling issues and the things the three things I think people should really keep in mind, and all of which go to show that from the moment Linda was first armed, nobody in that system ever took seriously getting justice for her. And that's where we are today, and that's why we're here today.
I think it's so important to stress the aboriginality of the victims and the alleged perpetrator as well, because I think for maybe listeners who aren't familiar with the Aboriginal community, I just feel this is a story that never would have happened in a non Indigenous community, something that's something that you feel that it's not the screw ups to you know, monumental screw ups would never have happened in a non Indigenous community or would have been very unlikely to have happened.
Well, yes, And I think that's uncomfortable perhaps for a lot of people, and maybe it's most uncomfortable for those involved in policing and in the justice system themselves. But I think it's something we have to accept, is that Australia has a very poor job when it comes to these types of cases and issues. I think had the victim been white, we would have had a very different
police investigation and a very different trial. And I think had the perpetrator been white, we would have seen things done very differently too, And again that was one of the very early lessons that the sloppiness and the way the people, all the people from the accused to the victim, to the bystanders to those totally innocent and caught out by the process, we're all treated in a different manner purely because they were aboriginal.
I think one of the most interesting episodes for me recording it you've also listening back, was the episode's visit on the forced confessions. Can you tell me recap a little bit for our listeners about about Kevin's confession and what we now know that we might not have known other started this investigation.
Well, the first thing I learned, or one of the first things I had learned, is that Kevin had confessed, and that's always worrying, of course, that someone's confessed to a crime and perhaps now they're trying to change their mind about all that. So immediately you go to that confession and you want to look at it. But of course what we didn't know when we first looked into this was that the way Kevin's interviews were conducted, the way the statements were taken from him were not done
in a professional manner at all. His first statement was taken the following day, and it appears that not much in that statement matches the second statement, which is the alleged confession. And what's interesting about the alleged confession is Kevin never confesses to murder. Now, the other things we have to remember about that statement, that second statement, the alleged confession, is that he asked for legal counsel and he didn't get it. That he protested many times and
didn't want to continue answering questions, and that was ignored. Now, these two issues alone led the judge to strike much of that statement from the record, not allow the jury to hear it. But there were other issues. There's issues of Kevin's literacy and the fact that he really couldn't read or write, so the paperwork that was presented in front of him that was supposed to be words from his own mouth or that he was supposed to have written himself, were not his. There's also the factors like
police introducing evidence that just wasn't true. So were they trying to lead Kevin to make a claim or a statement that would implicate himself and of course Kevin didn't understand, as most of us in the public don't, the fact that we can implicate ourselves in a crime, and when you've been denied legal counsel, that's even more likely to occur. And I think what really brings this home is that it wasn't just Kevin that was treated in this way,
every witness in the case. And we have to remember this is very important that even those who played no role in the assault, some who weren't even present when it took place and who weren't there that night, were
treated in the same way by police. And so we have people like Wayne Saunders, who was hounded and hounded for months to give a statement, and by his own admission, not only was he illiterate, he was constantly intoxicated, and he said himself he couldn't remember what happened, what he saw or what he didn't see, and he just couldn't give a proper statement, and yet he was pursued by the police and harassed until he was willing to just
initial a document. So I think this whole issue of there being a confession was something that changed drastically from when we first heard of the case and when we first began to look into it until where we are today, which is that there really is no confession, and that the statement that does exist is extremely problematic, and that all the witness statements are tainted by the issues of literacy, the issues of intoxication, the issues of threats, the issues
of coercion, and the fact that the crime scene and those witnesses weren't secured in a manner that they should have.
Do you think the confession played a big part in the trial, even though going through it it seems amazing that it was even extensive. A big chunk of it was actually thrown out by the judge. But even though he never actually confesses to killing Linda, do you think the confession did play a major part in the trial, that the jury did take it take it to heart.
I think it did. And I think this is where we have to examine the media role, and that is something we'll do more next year, which is that the jury were free to go home every night. We have to remember that in a regional town you tend to have one newspaper, one local news station on the television, and a small number of radio stations. And while the judge might have struck much of this from the record.
The media took it upon themselves to report things that just weren't true, and I think that certainly influenced the jury, and we know that because of the questions they would later ask the judge. Again, that's something we'll explore next year. But I have no doubt that the belief on the jury's behalf that there was some confession, even if they didn't get to see it, that it had been made and therefore that was enough.
Now, in this series, we actually had two quite well known interviewees, didn't we Pat McGuinness over in America and Phil Dickey, who is very well known in Australia. How much did you learn from being able to speak to those two guys in relation to Kevin Henry's case.
Well, for me, I think it was enormously influential and also very helpful. I think in talking to Pat McGuinness, the defense lawyer from the United States, he's one of the leading authorities on forced confessions and also on the way race plays a role in murder trials, the role
that illiteracy plays. And he's an expert not because he sits in a university, but because he's tried these cases as a defense lawyer for more than three decades, and he's seen the result of what happens when police don't do their job, and when police may threaten people, when police may interview those who are illiterate, intoxicated, mentally or
physically impaired. So I think he gave great insight into not just one case that is highlighted in the movie Murder on a Sunday Morning that won the Oscar that features his work, but on his entire body of work. That what we're explaining about Kevin's confession and the statement that leads to be an alleged confession, is not at all unusual. We're not trying to launch a rocket to
the moon. In fact, what we're exposing is something that he's known and his colleagues in the United States and in many other countries around the world have known for decades, which is that some racial minorities, and in Australia that's Aboriginal Australians are targeted in this way and so that
we shouldn't be surprised that this is what occurred. And so to give further context to that, I think Phil Dickie was very helpful because he is a journalist who was at the Courier Mail and exposed the level of police corruption in Queensland that went all the way to the top, and his work led to the Fitzgerald inquiry.
Gives us the background of an environment in Queensland that would lead police to act in this manner that would lead to the sort of problems we've described in terms of police conduct, the way the entire high judicial system operated. He also spoke about the way the media operated as well.
So I think to have that content context given to us by outside parties who know nothing of the particular case, but can give great insight and expert insight into both key aspects to the case and also what was happening in Queensland at the time, is vitally important both for us in investigating this entire matter and for the listeners to be able to transport themselves back to nineteen ninety one.
And speaking of Pat McGinnis and America America's example, I mean a lot of Australians I think still think that we in a way have a fairer justice system. How would you say this case, Kevin Hanrickets, has it changed anything to you about how these strange justice system works that we on par with America.
Do you think, well, I think I've been lucky. I guess I can say to work on cases in the United States, including murder cases and death penalty cases, their system is no doubt worse I think as a whole. But I think where Australia's system tops theirs in its lack of quality, in its unfairness, in its cruelness, in the pure lack of justice, is dealing with Indigenous Australians. I always held that belief from personal observation as well as from my profession, but if anything, this is just
further enforced that. And speaking to Pat McGuinness both off air and on and being able to discuss cases we've both worked on, I think it's easy to come to
that conclusion. And I would really say that while it's easy to look at the US system while we are constantly bombarded with cases from America, and that's always been the way, whether it was back to oj Simpson all the way through to modern times with cases like Travon Martin, the Australian public pays very little attention to their own justice system, and this is one of the reasons that these injustices occur is because while our eyes are fixed
on America and the grave injustices that are committed there, they're also happening to our Indigenous population right under our noses.
And so if.
Anything, this has galvanized my own beliefs and my own efforts in trying to highlight this particular issue further, and that is that Australians need to wake up to the disgraceful way Indigenous Australians are treated by the police and the justice system.
And there's only been just this week we saw one of our young Aboriginal youth up in the Northern Territory. Dylan Volla was actually giving evidence towards for the Royal Commission into juvenile's attention in the Northern Territory. So there's a lot of things that haven't changed in Australia in the twenty five years since Kevin Henry has been incarcerated. Has there like we haven't had much change given even just the current week's events with Dylan Voller testifying.
Yeah, I think that's right, and I think it's a sad reminder that twenty five years after Linda passed away and her family, Sandy has a very real and harri fit connection to the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in custody that those deaths, some four hundred, have continued in the last twenty five years, and now we're really seeing exposed the treatment of not just Aboriginal men and women
in the justice system, but Aboriginal children. I think one thing we have to remember about Dylan Vola, who spoke this week in the Northern Territory Royal Commission, is that he was just ten years old when the justice system first began to abuse him. Now I've watched this week as people climb on their high horse and make all
sorts of statements about young villain Vola. But I think it's very dangerous to condemn a person who was first subjected to what I consider to be torture at just ten years To expect a child to endure sleep deprivation, constant light and dark as a method of intimidating him, as a way of showing him that he is being controlled, the way physical aggression and violence was used against him,
the way food and water was withheld from him. People may have seen the spit hood and the giitmo like treatment that occurred when he was perhaps sixteen years old. But we have to really think about a ten year old that you know and consider being put them being put as Dylan was naked in a cell, denied water, in boiling hot conditions, denied food, beaten. To expect that this child would come out and be a perfect citizen
is absurd. And I think the other thing we have to remember too, is that Dylan, as a young Aboriginal Australian, asked while he was in custody to complete his high school certificate. He asked to stay in Alice Springs, both where his family and culture is, but also where his psychiatrist is located, and his psychiatrists wanted that as well, because Dylan suffers adhd IT. And upon that request, he was moved the next day to Darwen and he was
never allowed to complete his education. So again I would say to those who are demonizing this young man, think about a ten year old you know asked that they be subjected to all of that, and then tell me the shape they would look in today. And if you can honestly say that person would be a perfect individual, then fine. Judge mister Vola, and all the children of don Dale and judge people like myself who stand up for them. But I don't think any reasonable person could
make that argument. And I think watching that this week has taught people a lesson, and I think it leads to something that we haven't discussed before, which is that Kevin Henry himself was placed in juvenile attention and that was at the age of twelve or thirteen, and his crime then was stealing a couple of lollies. Now, how many twelve or thirteen year olds have done exactly that? And then ask yourself how many of them then went on to serve six months in custody, spending some of
that time with adult prisoners. So I think this week brings full circle everything we know about the case of Kevin Henry, but also everything we know about the way Indigenous children are criminalized from such a young age. And I think this should worry any Australian that cares about not just Aboriginal people, but their society as a whole, and whether the way we conduct justice in inverted commas is sustainable or justice at all vis a vis the Indigenous population.
So I guess a lot of our listeners, if they've been listening throughout the top past ten episodes and have been following. I bet you a lot of them are wondering what they might be able to do or where to next. So Kevin Henry, is there anything that they could possibly do to get involved as they were interested?
Yes, So one thing we're going to and they'll be available on Friday when you hear this episode is there'll be a petition. And that's a petition you can sign if you believe that Kevin Henry deserves the justice system take another look at this case and whether you think that politicians, particularly the Attorney General and Premier of Queensland, need to have this case re examined. And we require
that for two reasons. One is, if Kevin Henry is innocent, he has served twenty five years in prison for a crime he did not do. Now, I would put it to all listeners that, based on the evidence they've heard so far, and remembering there is still a lot more to come, that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to convict any man beyond a reasonable doubt of murder
in this case. Also say this, if you have doubts about Kevin Henry's guilt, then you must also have doubts that Linda Ever got justice, and I think she and her family deserve that. I think given what Australia has done to her family, and that's documented from the Royal Commission into Black Debts in Custody, I think they as
much as Kevin Henry and his family deserve justice. And I think that's the first step, is for people to be willing to put their names to a petition and say that this is unacceptable and that we need to get to the truth.
Now. If you want a copy of that position, we'll put it up on www dot kurtinthepodcast dot com and we'll also share it on our Facebook and Twitter accounts, so if you look up kurtin the podcast, you'll be able to find them there. And the other thing we need as well is to raise as much much public
awareness about this case as possible. So if you've been listening to Curtain for the past ten episodes and you have reasons about Kevin Henry's guilt and would like to do something, send the podcast around, ask your friends to listen to it, raise it on iTunes, and just tell everyone you can join us again in the new year for more of Curtain