Promoting people's rights and civil liberties. It is non-party political and independent of other organisations.
Tipple calls for inquisitorial system

Tipple calls for inquisitorial system

Lindy Chamberlain’s lawyer in the ‘dingo-took-my-baby’ case, Stuart Tipple, has spoken out about the need to change and improve the Australian legal system: 2 June 2014

Tipple calls for inquisitorial system

Stuart Tipple* is a man who knows more about how the Australian law can miscarry than most: he was the solicitor for Lindy Chamberlain for all the the decades it took to secure justice in the ‘Dingo-took-my-baby’ case.

tippleTipple (left), unusually, spoke out about the Australian justice system during a talk at the University of Tasmania recently. Here is how blogger and CLA member, Barbara Etter, reported what he said:

Stuart commented that he thought at one stage that Australia had the best legal system in the world. He no longer holds that view. He believes that important changes or improvements need to be made.

He pointed out that, to his way of thinking, there were clear advantages in the inquisitorial system. He stated that the adversarial system is not a search for the truth.

He voiced concerns with the quality of some expert evidence, even today.

He commented that people who should not be regarded as experts can effectively give questionable evidence in court.

He mentioned, as an example, the Gordon Wood case in NSW. He commented that some expert evidence came under far less review than a journal article that at least had to be peer reviewed. One of his main disappointments from the Morling Inquiry is that no action was taken against expert witnesses for their testimony.

He also expressed concern about the difficulties that were evident generally when you had two experts with opposing views; he queried how the jury were supposed to judge which expert was correct in his/her opinion.

He praised the Scandinavian system where a lot of the forensic evidence is apparently carefully scrutinised before it even gets into court.

He was critical of the jury system and pointed to some jurisdictions that allowed judge-only decisions. He pointed out that in the Rayney case in WA, where the accused was an experienced criminal lawyer, the option for a judge-only hearing had been pursued. Mr Rayney was subsequently acquitted of the murder of his wife.

It appeared that those who were more informed about the system would opt in most cases for a judge-only hearing.

chamberlainStuart also reflected on the trial in Lindy Chamberlain’s case (photo left, with baby Azaria) where it was clear that the trial judge in his summing up and directions to the jury had been indicating a possible acquittal. Despite this, the jury found her guilty.

He also spoke about legal hurdles facing those who had been wrongly convicted and the limited avenues available to them. He pointed out that in Tasmania, as in most other Australian jurisdictions, there was no further right to appeal and no Criminal Cases Review Commission, as in the UK.

He discussed the political nature of the Petition for Mercy process which required a decision by a politician to have the matter referred back to the courts. He said that any Attorney would be keen generally to maintain a conviction and not upset the status quo. He or she was on a “hiding to nothing”. At that point Stuart strongly stressed again the importance of “people power”.

He stated that he was aware of the Sue Neill-Fraser case here in Tasmania and the fact that there appeared to be issues in the case with presumptive testing. He said he was one of a number of leading lawyers who supported an inquiry into the case.

Stuart ended by reminding people it was their legal system and, in effect, that it was up to us all as individuals and concerned citizens to essentially make sure that we had a system that was both effective and fair.

Chamberlain 30 Years On and What Lessons Have Been Learned? A free public event hosted by the School of Social Sciences at the University of Tasmania, courtesy of Professor Rob White of Criminology at the Stanley Burbury lecture theatre at the Sandy Bay campus on Wednesday 28 May 2014.

The event was live-streamed and is available from the UTAS website at For the exact wording used and for the full discussion, please refer to the recorded proceedings.

Background on Stuart Tipple, from the Celebrity Speakers website:

* Stuart was retained by Dr Michael Chamberlain and Mrs Lindy Chamberlaine-Creighton to appear on their behalf after the first inquest into the death of Azaria Chamberlain was quashed and a new inquest ordered. He represented the Chamberlains at their trial and subsequent appeals. After the High Court Appeal was lost by a three two majority, he oversaw –

  • a media campaign which set up the Chamberlain Innocence Committee comprising prominent Australians calling for a Royal Commission;
  • engaged scientists to conduct further tests which eventually destroyed the Crown case;
  • successfully applied for the establishment of a Royal Commission.

Following the Royal Commission, the Chamberlains were pardoned, compensated and later acquitted.

In 1995 the Northern Territory held a third Inquest which returned an open finding. This finding was unsatisfactory and from 1995 further evidence was accumulated confirming the danger and propensity of dingoes. In November 2010 Mr Tipple successfully applied for a fourth Inquest.

The fourth Inquest concluded on 12th June 2012, some 32 years after Azaria disappeared. The Coroner delivered her findings via live television which was watched around the world, a found that Azaria had met her death after being attacked and taken by a dingo.


  1. People need to be very wary indeed of their opting for a judge-only* trial, thinking that it will be better than a jury-trial. The former chief justice of Western Australia, Wayne Martin, wanted to be given permission to sit-in with jury members in the jury room when they retire there to deliberate. It is my belief that, if Martin was ever worth his salt as a jurist (and I don’t believe so), then he – like any other jurist worth their salt – should have been able to deduce that he would never be granted such permission. Martin should’ve been able to easily understand that he, like any jurist, whilst restricted on the bench in court, is given permission to address the jury. Anything other than this is tantamount to that of a ‘star chamber’.

    Surely Martin must’ve heard the one about: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Evidently not. QED

    Stuart Tipple is correct when he says that the legal system belongs to the people, and if any of these people whilst in court happen to hear a jurist say something like: “I won’t tolerate any interruptions in MY court”, these people need to promptly remind the temerarious jurist that the court IS NOT his/hers, simply because it belongs to the people, as do the laws, and the judge should be instructed to humbly consider himself/herself fortunate to be but a member of the court.

    *Better-known as ‘judge-baloney’ trials for ‘silly sausages’.

  2. Although Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael were both wrongfully convicted of having murdered their baby daughter Azaria, with Lindy being sent to prison, wherein she gave birth to her and Michael’s fourth child, everyone must remain ever mindful that NO CRIME had actually been committed by anyone in the death of Azaria, because it isn’t a crime for a wild animal like a dingo, entirely of its own volition, to kill a human being.

    The Northern Territory government, its police and jury-rigged justice system need be forever roundly ridiculed for having heinously stooped so legally-low in their conspiring to successfully create a crime out of thin air. The so-called ‘law’ (never to be confused with ‘justice’!) is never about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and certainly never about ‘the truth’; it is merely about what presents itself as being ‘acceptable’ to the wanton whims of those persons who have been placed in a position of authority, and they egregiously exercise this authority; not because they should, but simply because they can, all the while feeling that they must be seen to do so, and what these cretins cruelly did to the Chamberlains proves all of this. QED

  3. Good to hear that Mr Tipple is offered a chance to publicly explain some of the difficulties faced by the defence legal team after the first Chamberlain inquest.

    Unbelievable amounts of scurrilous media-generated rumours regarding this terrible tragedy were capably sorted out by the first coroner. Despite media craziness leading up to it, Mr Barrit had a common-sense capacity to sort out the wheat from the chaff – including from pretend boffins or incompetent cops.

    NT Police later interviewed witnesses in secret – with severe instructions from above.
    It was a tainted investigation from the start.

    The legal ambush at the 2nd inquest, which effectively derailed any subsequent proceedings, happened with the implicit knowledge of the political person then in charge in the NT, whose imported legal mate did the unthinkable. Veiled political threats to the future employment prospects of the 2nd coroner made absolutely sure of the outcome of that particular kangaroo court.

    Despite the best instructions of the judge to the jury in this politically motivated ‘show-trial’ , the train wreck is now part of Australia’s legal history. Unfortunately, others in different states have suffered similar fates.

    It is about time we looked a bit more closely at the ways in which scientific evidence is accepted in the court room. Even Blind Freddy could have seen this was right up that well known creek. The courts took 32 years to amend an obvious injustice. One shudders to think what might happen with their capacity to deal with cases in future.
    Greg Lowe

    NB. The original incident may have occurred a long time ago, but those who were present at the time still live with the aftermath. It indeed became a harrowing experience for all closely involved. PTSD they call it nowadays.

    The conniving events that happened behind the scenes are yet to be made public. But the matters, as they unfolded, caused a few concerned people to review t.heir own perception of the Oxford Dictionary explanation of the term ‘Frame up’.

    Stand up for what is right.

    Greg Lowe

Leave a Reply

Translate »