Update

Progress in My FOI Investigation

For 62 years, I have lived with the consequences of a wrongful conviction.

Although my conviction was eventually overturned, many questions remain unanswered. I am now using Freedom of Information requests to seek documents that may help explain how the injustice occurred, who knew what, and why proper accountability has still not followed.

This edition provides an update on four key areas of my investigation.

1. The Jury Visit to the Crime Scene

At my 1963 trial for the murder of my girlfriend, the jury was shown the crime scene without me being present.

If that had been known and properly challenged at the time, it may have raised serious questions about the fairness of the trial. I am now seeking records that may help prove what occurred and support my continuing request for an inquiry into my wrongful conviction.

I first contacted the State Records Office.

Their reply indicated that the Department of Justice may hold Crown Law Department files dating back to 1963 relating to my case. They also advised that the Supreme Court file reference is:

SROWA Consignment 4216, Case File 10957

They suggested that the Department of Justice was more likely to hold the relevant Crown Law Department files.

I then contacted the Department of Justice.

The Department has advised that, due to staff shortages and a high volume of information requests, there are significant delays in processing FOI applications. They have requested an extension until 2 August 2026, although they say they will try to process the application as soon as practicable.

So, for now, I am still waiting.

2. The False Confession

In 2016, I received a copy of a letter sent to Mr Malcolm McCusker KC, former Governor of Western Australia, from the Attorney General.

That letter stated that, following a police inquiry, it had been found that I was forced into signing a false confession, which contributed to my conviction.

“There was also evidence of improper conduct and serious neglect or failure on the part of investigating officers in the performance of their duties, particularly in relation to the confession that had been obtained.”

I have sought records relating to that finding.

I contacted the Police Department.

Their reply stated that under section 26(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992, it was not possible to grant access to the requested documents because they either do not exist or could not be located after reasonable searches.

The file has now been closed by the police.

I also contacted the Attorney General’s Department. That request was transferred to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has advised that there have been delays in finalising my application, but that they believe the latest extension is the final one. They have requested a further two-week extension, making the revised completion date 6 May 2026.

Their reply: Decision: For the reasons set out below, I have decided that all reasonable steps have been taken to find documents falling within the scope of your application and such documents do not exist within the records of the Department.

If you are not satisfied with this decision, you have a right to apply for an internal review.

I did, within the hour. Again, I am still waiting.

3. Pension Reduction After My Ex-Gratia Payment

After I received an ex-gratia payment for my wrongful conviction, Centrelink deducted almost $800 per month from our pensions whenever I withdrew $1,000 per month from my award.

I believed this was wrong and asked for documents to understand how that decision was made.

I contacted the Federal Department of Finance.

Their reply stated that there were no internal briefings or advice used by Finance to assess the figures provided by the relevant agencies or to draft the Act of Grace decisions.

Finance also advised that I should seek documents from Services Australia, because Services Australia may hold the records explaining how my pension was calculated.

I have contacted Services Australia, and I am still waiting for their reply.

I am also waiting for further information from Centrelink and from the Parliamentary Inspector, who has asked me for more details.

4. Review of My Case

In 2008, I asked the Crime and Corruption Commission to investigate the reasons for my wrongful conviction.

The Commission asked the two police officers involved in the false confession and the movement of evidence whether they would cooperate with an inquiry. They said no.

As a result, the CCC refused my request.

I then took the matter further.

The Parliamentary Inspector dismissed my claim.

I then referred the matter to Parliamentary Assistance.

The reply I received acknowledged the seriousness of my case and the lasting damage caused by wrongful conviction. It also stated that the material I provided would be carefully reviewed, including possible parliamentary avenues such as committee referral and questions in the Legislative Council.

That is encouraging, but it is still only another step in a very long road.

Final Thought

As readers can see, the search for truth is still moving forward.

But it moves slowly.

Some records are delayed. Some cannot be found. Some agencies ask for more time. Others pass responsibility elsewhere.

After 62 years, I am still asking for answers.

Not only for myself, but for others who may one day face the same system.

The truth should not depend on how long a person can wait.

And accountability should not disappear with time.