“A woman was convicted of murder on false evidence. She spent 13 years in prison. Her family has suffered. Both trial and appellate courts have been duped.” HUGH SELBY looks for contrition in the Tasmanian judicial system and finds none.

It’s sad, so sad, it’s a sad, sad situation
And it’s getting more and more absurd.
It’s so sad, so sad, why can’t we talk it over?
Oh, it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word.

–Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word,” Elton John, 1976 

“Owning up”, saying “sorry” is hard for all of us, young and old, no matter how successful we are. This is because it might damage our reputation, and there might be unpleasant consequences.

“Sorry” means having the courage to take responsibility. Courage is rare. We all know that.

In daily life “sorry” follows misunderstandings, insensitivity, errors of judgement, mistakes of all sorts – all of which have hurt someone else.

That “someone” may be a family member, a friend, a team mate, a work mate, or someone to whom, because of our position, we owed a duty to take care that we got it right.

In the criminal justice system police, forensic scientists, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and the attorney-general all owe it to victims, survivors, accused, and the public to be competent, thorough, honest and, above all, to respect the actual evidence.

Thankfully, in most cases everyone follows the rules. Then we can all feel safe.

But failures to respect the evidence can lead to big errors, to convictions that are just wrong.

When speculation or worse, invented facts, are added to the mix there is a recipe for long-term cover up.

Once that happens it becomes impossible to say “sorry”. Unpleasant consequences loom large. Keeping the truth hidden becomes the all-consuming objective.

We can call that out as “corruption”. Others might label it as perverting the course of justice.

That has happened in Tasmania. The Apple Isle has become a rotten apple, rotten at its justice core.

From errors to full blown cover up

There were serious errors at the 2010 trial of Sue Neill-Fraser. She was convicted of the murder of her partner on their yacht, Four Winds, on Australia Day 2009. The following are just some of the errors:

• A witness was tricked into signing a statement that he saw the Four Winds with its dinghy that afternoon. That mistake put Ms Neill-Fraser on the yacht. It is certain that he saw another yacht, another dinghy.
• A prosecution staffer was told about that error during the trial by a police officer. Neither the prosecutor nor the defence was told so the error went uncorrected. 
• An “expert” told the jury that she could see that there had been blood in the yacht’s dinghy. The jury was tricked with a false explanation of what could be seen in a photo. She knew that the scientific tests showed that there was no blood.
• Police claimed that Ms Neill-Fraser used the electric winches on the yacht to get her partner’s body into the dinghy. The winches could not operate as claimed.
• A small blue towel was found on the yacht deck. As a possible source of evidence to show who was on the yacht it could be important. The police have refused to explain what, if any, testing was done with what results. They have refused to produce the towel. 

These errors have been known for some years, but those with responsibility to act have made the choice to refuse to explain, to refuse to be accountable.

Cover up is the only game in town.

Most recently they have made a mockery of “Right to Information” by using far-fetched excuses to refuse to release documents.

They have even claimed in writing that sharing scientific information obtained from an interstate laboratory would damage relations among the States and so must be kept secret. Go figure! 

Their dirty tricks department has resorted to threats of defamation against publishers to have articles exposing the errors taken down, threats of contempt of court proceedings to keep misconduct under wraps, interference in court processes to delay the handing down of a decision and change the composition of a hearing bench. 

People with nothing to hide don’t play those sorts of games.

Be grateful for science

In late 2025 a paper was tabled in the Legislative Council (authored by Barbara Etter and Hugh Selby). 

Those who like their “true crime” to be true can find it here.

Scientific advances since the trial are set out. These include how long DNA survives on different surfaces under various conditions, and whether a DNA sample came directly from the source, or came via contact with someone else.

The paper also sets out serious shortcomings in the police investigation, not only in 2009 and 2010, but also up to and beyond Ms Neill-Fraser’s 2021 appeal. 

These shortcomings include the failure to carry out some basic investigations into the movements of people who should have been suspects because of their criminal history and associates, coupled with a failure to disclose relevant material to the prosecution.

This in turn meant that Ms Neill-Fraser’s lawyers were short changed on information to which they were entitled.

Worse, important scientific material that pointed to a young woman being on the yacht that Australia Day afternoon was not put before the 2021 appeal judges, despite it being in the papers prepared for that appeal.

Taking together those advances in science, and the now uncovered flaws in the police investigation, mean that the best available explanation (better than the prosecution case at the 2010 trial, or any “improved” explanation they could suggest in 2026) for the Australia Day tragedy on the Four Winds is as follows:

1. Ms Neill-Fraser left her partner, Bob Chappell, working on the yacht while she went back to shore in the blue and white dinghy. She did not return. With no dinghy the yacht looked to have no one aboard.
2. Later that day another dinghy (grey in colour) was used by a known young woman and another or others unknown to board the yacht.
3. The police were well aware of thefts from moored boats at that time.
4. Something happened on the yacht between Bob and one or more of those present. We know Bob died, but we don’t know how or why. It may have been murder. It may have been an accident.
5. The known young woman left a large deposit of their DNA in saliva on the metal deck of the yacht. It was not left on the yacht at any later time.
6. At least one other person present had sufficient boat knowledge to attempt to sink the yacht before they left in the grey dinghy. The attempt failed. 

The known young woman denied being on the yacht at the 2010 trial. Years later she swore to having been on the yacht. 

Following that admission a right thinking police and prosecution service – not committed to sustaining a suss conviction – would have been keen to get the full story from her.

They would, for example, have explored giving her immunity from prosecution in exchange for reliable information. 

Thereafter they would have fully investigated every aspect of that information and ensured that she was properly protected and well able to give evidence in court.

None of that happened. Instead this important but vulnerable informant was ignored, save for attempts to destroy her credibility.

At the 2021 appeal she withdrew that admission. Given the lack of support that was not surprising.

But today’s science backs up her admission.

She was on the yacht that Australia Day. She knows who was there with her and she knows what happened. She must be asked.

Please note that there is no evidence that she was on the yacht with any criminal intent, or that she played any part in what happened.

What must be done

This is a situation that stains Tasmania’s criminal justice system. It can be fixed, but only by the government pushing back on those who keep saying: “Nothing to see here. We got the killer. It’s all just crazy talk”.

The government needs to now fund a fresh application for leave to appeal by Ms Neill-Fraser. When leave is granted they must fund her appeal costs. The errors were made by public servants (police, forensic staff, and lawyers) and the government must pick up the tab to fix it.

Separately, the range and seriousness of the errors and misconduct by police, forensic staff and lawyers is so extensive that a public inquiry must be held to explain how it happened, why it happened, and what must be done to reduce the chances of it happening again.

Reputations will be damaged. Those who have engaged in this cover up will be exposed – as they should be. A woman was convicted on false evidence. She spent many years in prison. Her family has suffered. Her partner’s family, too. Both trial and appellate courts have been duped.

It’s a sad, sad situation, ever more absurd. Those who should, won’t talk it over, because sorry is their never word.
We must be realistic and settle for funding Sue Neill-Fraser to secure a just outcome, along with an inquiry which sets out the awful detail as a lesson to us all. It’s time for the chips to fall where they may.

“CityNews” legal commentator and former barrister Hugh Selby, along with Barbara Etter, wrote the papers tabled in the Tasmanian Legislative Council.

Imagining what Tasmanian justice might try to be