In 1984 he was sentenced to murder with a bottom of 22 years, although that was adjusted upward in 1994. Coincidentally, this also followed Bromley's activism in relation to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He has reached his parole date and his applications have repeatedly been refused. Robert Moles, a professor of law & an expert in wrongful convictions, said Bromley won't give the board an acknowledgement of guilt and has always maintained he never committed the murder. Moles said he believes the evidence used to gain Bromley's 1984 conviction was unsafe. If that is the case, it too, would not be an isolated event.
 |
| Derek Bromley, pic courtesy of Net K website & supporters |
Legislation was passed only last year that allows prisoners to appeal if they have new evidence. Previously, they relied on filing a petition with the Attorney General for him to exercise his 'Prerogative of Mercy', to give inmates an opportunity to seek justice remedies, where the system had made an error. Needless to say, appeals didn't happen a lot. While several cases have persuasive evidence of evidentiary flaws in convictions, few have been examined - even by the media. Mostly, those alleged wrongful convictions that have been identified in the news media, did not relate to Aboriginal prisoners. Justice Kirby noted the likelihood that the largest group for which the legislation would be useful, was of course, Aboriginals. Extraordinarily, and with the weight of Bob Moles' reputation behind it, mainstream media outlet, Today Tonight, ran a series on Bromley.
All states officially restrict entry to jail for journalists and, unofficially, they also hinder and obstruct prison access to social justice advocates that speak to reporters. In South Australian history, however, two murder convictions that hinged on flawed evidence were exposed with the help of journalists. Ted Splatt, who was wrongfully convicted of murder, worked closely with Adelaide journalist Stewart Cockburn, and was exonerated via Royal Commission, despite initial systemic resistance & threats from public servants. The murder conviction of Arrernte man, Rupert Max Stuart, captured the attention of journalists, advocates and lawyers alike. Murdoch's 'News' ran with it. Public pressure via their media campaign prompted Stuart's death sentence to be commuted to a life sentence and the state then tried to convict Murdoch and his editor for seditious libel.
South Australia's forensic laboratory, like others around Australia, had difficulties in its early days. Policing methods, likewise, were generally pretty rough around the edges. Career detectives - rather than university-trained specialists, still use every avenue in their power to follow up on a hunch, or a bias, or witness speculation, in lieu of much needed reliable, untainted forensic data. Beyond the often flawed practice of using criminal informants as credible witnesses, police have also had their dilemmas with DNA evidence and racial bias. Whether such issues were factors in the Bromley case is yet to be seen, but questions have been raised repeatedly about the veracity and accuracy of witness evidence in the prosecution.
Media coverage relating to contested convictions, swings wildly from one end of the spectrum of bias to the other. In the Bromley case, his supporters have suffered three decades of morally outraged reporters who seek to appease and to please their powerful SA police sources, not realizing that they have an obligation to their readers to balance that 'official' point of view. SA's print and online media, presently, is tabloid-dominated. What this means credibility-wise is that anyone accused, convicted or suspected, suffers the news-media equivalent of being dragged into the town centre for public shaming in the stocks. {This sentiment was explained to me early in my career by a local crime reporting dinosaur, one of a tabloid trio, I opt to call the Three Stooges - "there's gotta be a good guy and a bad guy in a story"... thanks mate, very technical.}
It also makes it very difficult for journalists to function in the role of the Fourth Estate. {The 'Fourth Estate' is a term that describes traditional reporting for the people, by the people. Journalists, when they act in that role, protect the public from overly powerful authorities and thus, protect democracy by arming the public with the truths it needs to make informed decisions about the government that is the ruling power. That 'need' defines 'public interest'. Now, despite being subject to: lousy checkout-operator pay, crabby editors and snobby authoritarian sources, journos often forget that they are just ordinary people, who represent the public & have an obligation to the truth & to the public interest.}
Fortunately, Bromley's diehard supporters have been able to muster considerable interest among the independent media and public broadcaster SBS through their persistence and the strength of their argument. Sadly, this type of interest and support is not usually the case, and ATSI injustices occur silently, and regularly, and almost invariably fall well short of independent or mainstream media interest - if, in fact, ATSI prisoners can actually get their message to the outside world at all.
Over the coming weeks and months we'll see the first of a litany of SA cases that will review evidence identified as potentially unsafe. In the meantime, Derek Bromley sits in his cell every day waiting for the justice system to live up to its name and allow him a chance to present the other side of the story - 30 years on. There will be skeptics, there always is. Ten years longer, and Bromley will have waited as long as Ryan.
##UPDATE - Bob Moles had this to say this morning in response to this post (many thanks for the link):
"It wasn't eye witness evidence only. There was forensic evidence, but that too was seriously flawed.
The problems with it have been set out in Derek Bromley's petition:
Also, one of Bromley's old friends this morning also offered her own personal perspective in response to this post. I have left out her name to preserve her privacy:
"Both forms of evidence were not valid enough to prove him guilty. He should
never have been accused or convicted in the first place. It was a gross case of
error on the behalf of the justice system...it was definitely a
miscarriage of justice, no qualms about it.
Hopefully people start caring enough to make a revolution happen on the subject
of this type of injustice, I think it's on the cards anyway, with placards of
justice in the streets of capital cities."
Posts
