Civil Liberties Australiaspacer

CLA Editorial Team


Genetics and DNA issues need special consideration by the State. The best-possible protections should be enforced in legislation.

 CLA Policy on Genetics and DNA

  • Because of its unique biological function, the use of human genetic material commercially or by the State for identification or policing purposes should be subject to a high level of scrutiny.
  • So that doctors are free to diagnose and treat, and to ensure that everyone has the right to equal access to publicly-provided health services, patents and other intellectual property monopolies should not be granted over human DNA or genetic materials.
  • Where intellectual property rights are granted over genetic materials, there should be broad, fair-use provisions to protect health professionals, researchers and teaching hospitals.
  • Any collection, use and storage of DNA samples must be done with explicit consent or with a judicially authorised warrant. DNA samples collected from suspects should be destroyed in the event of an acquittal, or a change being withdrawn.

DNA samples collected and held for medical research, diagnosis or treatment purposes should never be released



Report on Dept of Foreign Affairs – NGO forum 8 February 2018
(Acronyms explained at the end of document).

Civil Liberties Australia was disappointed with the management of this DFAT-NGO Forum on human rights. The chairing was of the customary high standard, but the actual design of this particular gathering and the procedures adopted  left much to be desired.

Firstly, the venue (at the National Gallery of Australia), although spectacular, was not suitable for breakout into small groups. The noise level of seven groups working at round tables in the same room precluded adequate discussion during the most “interactive” session. Such sessions were a breakaway from customary practice, and they didn’t “work” in the selected environment.

Left: tables crammed together made “interactive discussion” a cacophony of competing voices.

Secondly, what also didn’t work was DFAT representatives, in all sessions all day, lecturing “at” the people with whom they were meant to be consulting. The DFAT presentations went on for more than (sometimes well over) half the allotted time for the particular subject.

DFAT officers had an excellent opportunity to LISTEN to the expertise of the NGO delegates, a quality of knowledge and experience of those attending that DFAT had acknowledged in their opening remarks. However, as well as being talked at, we were talked down to. Insufficient time was allocated for real interactive consultation.

Not once, all day, did any DFAT officer, in addressing a suggestion from a participant, say: “That’s a good idea!  We will look into it.”

The new “interactive dialogue” sessions, with NGO reps split into the seven round-table discussion groups, didn’t work, at least in the “good governance” theme.  Again, too much time was taken up by DFAT officers, which left little time for NGO people to speak, let alone for proper interactive discussion. DFAT representatives spoke for 30 minutes of the allocated 60, as if their speaking at such length would preclude much speaking by those whom DFAT was meant to be consulting with.

The atmosphere was counter productive. DFAT officers seemed to be defensive, often saying that “the issue was already being dealt with adequately”.

Micro-management of the Q&A process meant DFAT could evade difficult questions. Those attending were asked to put forward their questions in advance, and DFAT chose which to answer.

When a question or statement from an NGO representative did not suit, it was ignored. For example, during the morning all issues regarding refugees were deferred…but the opportunity to debate them never came.  The issues included questions about Rohingyas, surely at least partially a priority DFAT issue, given that any solution must involve Myanmar and Bangladesh as well as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and other countries where many now reside. Perhaps the Bali Process would be relevant. Yet, at no later session was the possibility of discussing refugee issues raised.

A session of MDGs/SDGs was incomprehensible to agencies that do not work directly with these concepts and tools. If such a session is to be introduced (and is it strictly relevant?), then it should be explained, with appropriate, readable materials provided in advance. Overhead projections on the day were illegible because of the level of detail that presenters had tried to cram on to each screen.

In the past, I have enjoyed the forums and appreciated the opportunity for interaction. This one was disheartening. The elephant in the room continues to be Australia’s off-shore detention centres. Many delegates attending feel strongly that Australia’s position on the Human Rights Council is hypocritical. The issue was not mentioned.

I sincerely believe that the forums can continue to be valuable for both DFAT and the NGOs who attend,  and trust that the next will be more delegate-friendly. NGO representatives really deserve to be given – as over the previous decade of such meetings – an opportunity for both parties to listen and learn.

Dr Kristine Klugman
President, Civil Liberties Australia
DFAT: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
NGO: Non-Government Organisation
Q&A: Question and Answer
MDGs: Millenium Development Goals
SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals


Comments by CLA on the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement on TPP* (CPATPP)

Civil Liberties Australia has grave concerns about the 2018 plan to sign and implement the new version of the former TPP*.

Firstly, countries have negotiated this enormous and new text in secret.  There has been no opportunity for public scrutiny.

There was widespread dissatisfaction with the earlier version. The proof of how much dissatisfaction is that, after 10 years of negotiating, proponents have not brought the deal to fruition.

Individuals and groups who raised a great many issues in the past can have no confidence that the 2018 replacement text will resolve any of the problems identified earlier. A lemon remains a lemon even when withering with age.

Critics include a wide range of international and Australian thinkers, including eminent economists, prominent jurists, environmentalists, public health associations, unions, welfare organisations, digital rights entities and civil liberties groups.

Notable problem areas include:

The public health effects of longer patents for imported pharmaceuticals and especially biologics.  These would tragically affect people on low incomes and potentially cost a fortune to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Restrictions on internet use and higher prices for downloads, increasing costs to consumers.

The potential lowering of safety standards:

  • for food and imported materials,
  • for occupational health and safety standards, and
  • for other working conditions.

The weakening of crucial Australian environmental protections.

Allowing free entry of overseas workers without the need for labour market testing.

Encouraging the outsourcing of even more government services, despite the recent revelations about widespread fraud, rorting and ripping off the most vulnerable people in our society by privatised services.

Copyright provisions that boost the rights of big corporates at the expense of the general public.

New legislation must be passed to implement changes to social legislation in Australia, but the CPATPP process will by-pass the usual levels of public discussion and scrutiny.

It is self-evidently undesirable for trade agreements to impinge on domestic social policy developed over many years by national consensus.

It is also questionable whether an existing parliament should presume to bind future parliaments which may have a mandate to alter this new legislation. They will not be able to do so without withdrawing from the trade agreement. Reversal of individual clauses would be costly, difficult and, to all practical intents, impossible.

ISDS over-rides national sovereignty

The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process allows international corporations to challenge Australian law in offshore tribunals.  These “courts” are run by corporate lawyers: they lack appropriate safeguards, such as being bound by precedent or allowing governments a right of appeal against their judgements.

Through this mechanism, corporations could sue Australia for introducing – or even maintaining – policies or laws which may threaten private company profits.  Corporations have already sued governments around the world, including the Australian government, over issues such as trying to monitor or reduce pollution from mining operations, restricting dangerous materials or even increasing wages.

The ISDS mechanism makes a mockery of democracy. Elected governments and the highest national courts can be overruled by an ad hoc three-person tribunal of non-judges in the interest of corporate profits. The concept of national sovereignty flies out the window.

The formal process to include ISDS (which even former Prime Minister John Howard rejected in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement) is not subject to legislation. The government in power can introduce ISDS, simply by ratifying the CPATPP agreement.

For more detailed information, please refer to submissions on these matters provided to previous parliamentary inquiries into trade treaties.      ENDS

* Trans Pacific Partnership: originally between 12 nations. In January 2017, President Donald Trump pulled the USA out of the potential agreement, scuttling it, because he said it was a “bad deal”. The current CPATPP is between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Negotiations began in 2008.

Lead author: Pauline Westwood; associate author: Bill Rowlings


By Stuart McRae

Recently I had the good fortune to read ‘The Basque History of the World’ written by former journalist Mark Kurlanski (Vintage Books, London, 2000).

This interesting and informative book covers an eclectic array of topics, including a number of mouth-watering recipes which furnish a gastronomic insight into Basque culture!

We also read about Basque architecture. We hear about idiosyncratic bodily features of the Basque people such as a propensity to inherit blood type ‘O’. The book also examines a myriad of social and political currents which buffet the Basque people as we traverse the centuries through the 359 pages of this remarkable compilation.

Let me alight for a moment on chapter 5, entitled ‘The Basque Billy Goat’. In this thought-provoking chapter Kurlanski examines the advent of the Inquisition in the Basque region.

He explains that the purpose of the Inquisition was to guard the purity of the Catholic Church. The Inquisition officials and employees were sworn to secrecy, proceedings were steeped in secrecy. All witnesses and the accused were sworn to secrecy and the accused could be held incommunicado for years. Officials were immune from secular authority.

One topic of interest for the Inquisition was to find and deal with witches. If the Inquisition determined that someone was a witch (usually after the accused had ‘confessed’ after being subjected to sickening torture and other forms of duress), they could be sentenced to death by burning.

The Inquisition led to people, having been terrorised by the Inquisition, falsely denouncing their friends, family and neighbours to avoid being burnt as a witch. People who were accused typically confessed to being a witch and to astonishing matters such as rendering someone into a miniscule version of themselves so as to allow them to pass through cracks and small holes or casting spells that might turn a person into a toad!

The writer tells us that in 1611 the Inquisition determined that in the village of Zugarramurdi, out of a population of 390, 158 were witches and 124 were under suspicion of being witches. Happily the author goes on to recount an instance where members of a community decided to resist the Inquisition and rescued people determined to be witches and sentenced to die. Faced with brave resistance, the Inquisition then ceased its activities in that community. This is but one example of Basque resilience.

Chilling examples hold relevance to here and now

It is interesting (perhaps also confronting and chilling) to reflect on the events of the Inquisition in the context of some of the current issues besetting our community in Australia.

For example you don’t have to look very closely into some of the recent local legislation enacted by our federal government to see some of the powers and immunities enjoyed by the Inquisition now reposed in various government authorities. A good starting point in any such investigation would be to read the schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), particularly in relation to terrorism type offences.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) establishes coercive powers and secrecy provisions which are nothing short of chilling. Of course there are a number of current moral panics (fear of Islam, etc, etc) which are reasonable analogues to the witch hunts that swept through Basque country.

The book also canvasses a seminal historical event relevant to the Basque people in the early part of last century, namely the events of the Spanish Civil War. The author provides a vivid and compelling description of the bombing of Gernica and the complex politics of the era. Although Gernica was basically destroyed by the German air force and the ‘Nationalist’ forces, symbolic of the resilience of the Basque people, the ‘Tree of Gernica’ survived.

Kurlanski takes the reader on a wonderful journey in his book. I have touched on a couple of topics in these remarks. Despite the many travails visited upon the Basque people over the centuries, they have managed to retain much of their culture and traditions.

In this book the reader will find a recipe for Hare with Walnut and Chocolate among many others. How often does a book give the reader the means to enjoy satisfying his hunger for food and for knowledge, information and wisdom?

Let me conclude by saying this is a wonderful book, beautifully written and very well researched. I have no hesitation in recommending it.

– Stuart McRae, CLA member, Kerang Vic (who is pictured holding the book)


CLA celebrates one success as OPCAT is ratified, opening up jails and detention centres to inspection, but much work remains to expose aged care issues and combat declining liberties.  Members highlighted these two areas as important for CLA to concentrate on. as well as calling for more attention on ‘private’ matters, like euthanasia, image exploitation and privacy itself. Wrongful convictions, abuse and rapidly rising prison numbers are also of great concern.

Other items in this issue include:

  • Formal notice of the 2018 CLA Annual General Meeting
  • Aged care submission in preparation: can you contribute?
  • Govt seeks new ways of grabbing people’s assets
  • CLA contributes to modern slavery report promoting need for law
  • Australia may yet get a bill of rights…or maybe several of them
  • DNA issues of concern in the USA and in Australia
  • New Dept of Affairs: muddle, in-fighting and misses
  • Rape trials collapse because police withhold evidence
  • Doctors may not even honour a tattooed ‘Do Not Resuscitate’


Click Here for SINGLE COLUMN (read on screen or print out)
Click Here for TWO COLUMN version (to print out & read over lunch or a break)


Has the ‘benefit’ of all this additional ‘security’ been worth the cost? 

Spending on ‘public order and safety’ by the Commonwealth Government has risen by 230% since 2000 – 01 – a larger increase than in any other category of spending apart from transport and communications. Within that category, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization ’s budget has increased by 573% (from $76mn to $512mn); the Australian Secret Intelligence Service’s budget has increased by 712% (from $43mn to $346mn); while the Australian Federal Police budget has grown, despite some cut-backs in the 2014-15 Budget, by 230% (from $584mn to $1.9bn). Total Commonwealth Government spending rose by 147% over the same period.


Dec 2017 newsletter: Prioritising needed for range of issues to be tackled in 2018

Aged care rights and freedoms of sportspeople and in sport are two issues that need greater attention in 2018…but what other matters should be prioritised, do you think?  The range of civil liberties and human rights issues that could/should be tackled is endless…but what important matters (being missed by other groups) need CLA to speak up about them?

Other items in this issue include:

  • S44 is only one of numerous Constitution clauses that need attention
  • Territorians should be free to make life choices
  • Sue Neill-Fraser case: stage is set in more ways than one
  • Age of reason going in two directions at once
  • Four-national trial to solve intimate images online problems
  • Miscarriages event highlights new ways ‘justice’ is failing
  • Forensics: list of errors and mistakes increases
  • US court shows how un-free comment is in Australia
  • ‘Whistleblower’ pill will tell a tale on you


Click Here for SINGLE COLUMN (read on screen or print out)
Click Here for TWO COLUMN version (to print out & read over lunch or a break)


Until Australia was elected to the UN Human Rights Council, with the resulting increased attention on our treatment of refugees, I hadn’t realised what a world leader in crime prevention we really are. As Australian politicians have repeatedly said, the indefinite detention in concentration camps for the refugees who were defrauded out of large amounts of money by people smugglers is purely aimed at stopping the people smugglers’ illegal business.

The notion of punishing the victims of crime to target the offenders is brilliant and innovative. This obviously successful model can now be applied to other areas of crime prevention. For example, the remaining property of victims of burglary could be confiscated to prevent more burglaries; the burglars would eventually have nothing left to steal, and would quickly be driven out of business.

The same approach could be applied to other property crimes including fraud. Most violence would be eradicated by locking up victims of violent crime to protect them from repeat victimisation.

John Walker, Queanbeyan NSW


Malcolm Turnbull rejected New Zealand’s offer to resettle 150 Manus Island refugees in New Zealand. The reason is Turnbull would lose 150 out of the 600 “tethered goats” who deter faraway refugees. Once Turnbull loses all his 600 “tethered goats” in Manus, the deterrent effect is gone. No longer could Immigration Minister Peter Dutton point to his Manus hellhole. He couldn’t say: “Come to Australia and we’ll make your life hell on earth.”

The more cruelty inflicted on refugees, the better the deterrence. To deter faraway refugees Dutton needs 1000 in prison camps. No refugees in prison camps is a green light to people smugglers. If we let refugees into Australia, chaos and social unrest is forecast.

But when German’s Angela Merkel let 1 million refugees into Germany, the sky didn’t fall.

– Graham Macafee, CLA member, Latham ACT


By BILL ROWLINGS, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia

About 300 Australian women and men convicted of major crimes are in jail today – and for many years to come – who should be free. They are innocent.

These are the findings of a three-year investigation into wrongful convictions worldwide by Civil Liberties Australia.

Everyone in jail’s innocent, right? Well, 7% of murderers and rapists – 1 in 14 – probably are*.

It is impossible to find figures anywhere in Australia on the number of innocent people in jail. The best we can do is extrapolate – draw conclusions – from valid measurements made on robust information in reliable legal systems.

By far the most comparable system to Australia is that of the UK. The laws-police-prosecutors-judges-courts-legal and justice system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is virtually identical to that in Australia. We have had the same systems as them for 230 years. The system differences are miniscule. Even any nuances are tiny in the overall scheme.

So the best comparative measure for the wrongful conviction rate in Australia is what has happened in the UK * over the past 20 years. (* not including Scotland: it has its own systems, and some unique legal options)

Twenty years ago the UK introduced a Criminal Cases Review Commission, based in Birmingham. The CCRC has the power to refer a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence.

The (CCRC) is completely independent.  It does not work for the courts, the police, the prosecution or for the people who apply for a review of their cases. It has special legal powers to obtain information from public bodies such as the police, the (prosecutor), social services, local councils and the National Health Service.

This separate, statutory body gave prisoners – in jail for major crimes who claim they are innocent – the chance to have their case independently assessed, without charge, by highly competent lawyers working full time for the CCRC. It has 90 staff, including 40 case reviewers.

Over 20 years, the CCRC has reviewed about 10,000 cases which pass its stringent standards for being accepted for review (for example, the prisoner must have exhausted all appeal opportunities before applying to the CCRC).

Over 20 years, the CCRC says, 7% of the 10,000 cases it has studied in detail are of innocent people wrongly convicted. That is, about 700 individuals should never have gone to jail in the UK.


In practice, and using hard numbers, by May 2017, the CCRC had referred 632 cases back to superior appeal courts of the UK for re-assessment. Many more cases are pending.

Of the 632, the appeal courts had agreed with the CCRC in 418 cases (67% of the 7%) and set the prisoner free.

If you agree there’s the strong likelihood that, in a near-identical Australian system, an equivalent 7% of innocent people are likely to be in jail here, it simply comes to a calculation to figure out how many people that would be. A broad, very approximate measure can be derived this way:

  • there are about 40,000 people in Australian jails;
  • there are about 85,000 people in UK jails;
  • therefore, the number of similar innocent people in Australian jails is 40 dived by 85, then multiplied by the 700 the CCRC believes are innocent in the UK.

The figure – for innocent people in Australian jails for major crimes – comes to 329.

If you take the lower, “actual” figure in May 2017 of formally-referred CCRC cases of 632, the division figure becomes 297.

So, either way, there are about 300 people jailed for murder, rape and major offences in Australian jails todaywho are innocent.

Based on the UK figures of cases which continue to pour in to the CCRC at a high rate, about four (4) people are being jailed every three (3) months in Australia – for long sentences of 10-20 years – for crimes of which they are innocent.

This has happened for 20 years, or more; it is happening this month; it will happen next month.

If Australia’s urban transport systems were suffering four train crash deaths every three months, there would be a public outcry and all systems would shut down until the faults were found and the system fixed.

But “accidents” in courts don’t seem to matter as much. Authorities seem to think that courts are infallible, and mistakes don’t matter because they affect “only a few”.

It’s “only a few”…unless it happens to you. Or to you family member, or to a relative or friend.

Jail is devastating to an individual and his/her future life, even if is for only a few months. The impact on family, friends and relatives is enormous.

If jail continues for 10-20 years, as is likely in the cases being considered here, the impact on the person and their loved ones is almost beyond comprehension. In some cases, a young child will be graduating from university before the wrongfully-convicted person gets out of jail.


Obviously, we need the equivalent of a CCRC in Australia if our justice system is to be as fair as that of the UK. We need a CCRC for each Australian jurisdiction (federal, six states, two territories), or we need to devise a way that one CCRC can operate across jurisdictions in Australia, so that we have one CCRC body only.

But, more fundamentally, there needs to be a major national study into why the legal-justice system in Australia is making so many errors, and into ways to improve competence and quality dramatically.

Rather than this issue being “difficult”, it is in fact an opportunity: there has never – not ever – been a major investigation into the Australian justice system.

We have inquired into Australia’s national health system (including Medicare and medical/doctor/nurse and hospital aspects), education, aviation, transport infrastructure, police, ports, airports, trains, road haulage, banking, spying, coal, nuclear, sport, newspapers, media and television, gambling, the sex industry, religious behaviour and misbehaviour, as well as electoral rules and electoral allowances…but we have never inquired into ways of improving the national system of laws, legal bodies and justice.

The time is now.


Having examined the UK system, it was worth making a comparison with the USA.

A long time ago in Australia, the UK and the USA, it was said that the likely error rate in courts was “about 0.5%” (Prof Samuel R. Goss in the US, more than 40 years ago). Sometimes, the “guesstimate” by judges, lawyers and the like in all three nations was “maybe 1%”.

NOTE: These error rates are for ALL cases before the courts, so that the 1% here may represent a huge number by comparison with the 7% for a specific ‘major crimes’ category, as we discussed earlier.

In the past decade though, estimates of error rates have risen dramatically as unique opportunities have arisen to do actual, real-life tests using DNA on whether a past conviction was justified. As well, and separately, one academic group found a different way of estimating wrongful convictions based on discrepancies in US courts between jury findings and judges’ opinions.

One actual test result for real-life wrongful convictions in one state of the USA for the 14 years between 1973 and 1987 is 8% for sexual assault cases where DNA samples were plentiful. There was an archive of 634 DNA samples “discovered” in a Commonwealth (State) of Virginia forensic facility. In 2012, it was possible to test these samples against the actual outcomes, that is convictions, in cases by then long decided. The result was a wrongful conviction rate of:


In fact, DNA samples from murder cases had also been stored in the same archive, though there were fewer DNA samples pro rata in the murder cases than there were in the sexual assault cases, meaning not as many accurate tests could be performed. The finding on testing the rape AND murder cases combined was a wrongful conviction rate of 5%.

One take-out from that testing is this: the more you can use hard evidence to re-test old, cold cases, the more likely it is to find larger error rates. A word of caution though: forensic laboratories worldwide having been throwing up their own serious predispositions to errors in recent decades, which have led to probably dozens of wrongful convictions.

There are currently question marks over forensic laboratories and forensic expert evidence in South Australia (for a 30-year period, possibly involving 400 cases), in WA and Queensland and Tasmania. Major forensic expert errors and discrepancies have come to light in Queensland and Victoria and NSW as well.

In 2007, a different group of researchers – not from the legal, wrongful conviction strain of analysis, but from sociology – found a new way to estimate errors by juries using a different method of comparison. This group analysed cases where a jury had made a decision but the presiding judge disagreed with the jury’s findings. They found the error rate in such situations to be up to 10%.

up to 10%

So, overall, judging on UK and US tests, estimates and calculations, it is highly likely that the error rate for those convicted of murder and rape in Australia, who still proclaim their innocence after they have exhausted every original opportunity for appeal, is at least 7%.

These are the people who have experienced the legal system by way of the most capable police, the more senior prosecutors and (usually) defence lawyers, and before only experienced judges.

What is the overall error, or wrongful conviction rate, in the Australian system? Including lower courts, in lesser cases, away from the media glare of inner capital cities, the error rate in Australia – across all cases – is much more likely to be in line with rates in the USA. The figures would indicate that a rate of 8-10% is more probable than possible.

That is, approximately every 10th prisoner in Australia is innocent.


The UK courts have agreed with the CCRC in 418 of 632 cases. That means the appeal courts agree about 67% of the time with the CCRC.

Why this disparity? There are probably a number of reasons:

  1. After 20 years, the Criminal Cases Review Commission knows more – much, much more – about innocence and wrongful convictions than any one appeal court hearing any individual case. For two decades, the CCRC has concentrated on nothing else but checking claims of innocence against court transcripts, evidence and further information. It is the full-time, professional, innocence authority.
  2. By comparison, each appeal court – probably made up of three judges in a a panel that may never have sat together – handles one or a small number of claimed CCRC innocence cases a year. By a long margin, the CCRC has the professional status over what are effectively, by comparison, “part-time” judges in terms of such innocence appeal cases.
  3. Judges – the same, or fellow, judges of those sitting on these CCRC appeal courts – have already apparently made a mistake in the original case, or the case would not have been referred back to the court by the CCRC. If judges make one mistake, the first time, on a set of “facts”, the likelihood is they will make the same mistake, or mistakes, on the same set of facts the second time around.
  4. Bias: judges do not like to criticise or find error in cases by:
    their fellow judges, or
    b. the work of lawyers (prosecutors or even defence lawyers).
    Every finding of innocence by these appeal courts is perceived as a dagger into the professionalism and competence of those judges and lawyers involved in the case the first time around. Defenders of the justice system claim judges are never biased but – if they are human – judges suffer similar impacts from rabid and excessive media portrayal of rapes, murders and terrorism acts as any citizen.

(NOTE: No-one has previously been able to come up with a way of measuring judicial bias. Perhaps the figures for CCRC cases not accepted by the courts provide such a measure. In which case, judicial bias may be evident in one-third of (these) appeal cases.


– By Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia v171123

* Strictly, the 7% who are innocent are drawn from those men and women in Australian jails, convicted of murder, rape of other serious crimes, who have been through every original charge and appeal court process, and lost…and who still protest their innocence. Note: In South Australia and Tasmania, appeals can be lodged as a secondary process, many years after the original conviction, if ‘fresh and compelling’ new evidence comes to light.