Hi, I'm Conrad Marshall and from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Welcome to Good Weekend Talks, a magazine for your ears, featuring in-depth conversations with fascinating people from sport and politics, science and culture, business and beyond. Every week, you can download new episodes in which top journalists from across our newsrooms talk to compelling people about the definitive stories of the day. In this episode, we speak with the chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science, Anna-Maria Arabia, who is raising serious concerns this weekend about the evidence that was used to convict one of Australia's most notorious prisoners, Robert Farquharson. Farquharson was convicted in 2007 and then again in 2010, of the triple murder of his three sons after he drove them into a dam on Father's Day 2005. The evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and relied heavily on science, but Anna-Maria, whose academy played a big role in getting a re-examination of the science used to convict Kathleen Folbigg, has now turned her attention to Farquharson. What she's found raises questions not just about this case, but about the legal system more broadly. Hosting this episode is a journalist who spent months combing through the evidence to ask the question, Is Farquharson the evil killer that most of us believe him to be, or is there room here to believe that he might have been wrongly convicted? He's written our cover story this week, Trial by Water, which is also the title of a special five part podcast investigation launching this Saturday. And that's The Age senior reporter Michael Bachelard.

Hi, I'm Conrad Marshall and from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Welcome to Good Weekend Talks, a magazine for your ears, featuring in-depth conversations with fascinating people from sport and politics, science and culture, business and beyond. Every week, you can download new episodes in which top journalists from across our newsrooms talk to compelling people about the definitive stories of the day. In this episode, we speak with the chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science, Anna-Maria Arabia, who is raising serious concerns this weekend about the evidence that was used to convict one of Australia's most notorious prisoners, Robert Farquharson. Farquharson was convicted in 2007 and then again in 2010, of the triple murder of his three sons after he drove them into a dam on Father's Day 2005. The evidence used to convict him was circumstantial and relied heavily on science, but Anna-Maria, whose academy played a big role in getting a re-examination of the science used to convict Kathleen Folbigg, has now turned her attention to Farquharson. What she's found raises questions not just about this case, but about the legal system more broadly. Hosting this episode is a journalist who spent months combing through the evidence to ask the question, Is Farquharson the evil killer that most of us believe him to be, or is there room here to believe that he might have been wrongly convicted? He's written our cover story this week, Trial by Water, which is also the title of a special five part podcast investigation launching this Saturday. And that's The Age senior reporter Michael Bachelard.

Thanks, Conrad. And hi Anna-Maria Arabia.

Thanks, Conrad. And hi Anna-Maria Arabia.

Hi, Michael. Great to be with you.

Hi, Michael. Great to be with you.

Anna Maria. I first became aware of you when I saw you fronting the media outside the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales last year, after the Kathleen Folbiggs conviction was overturned. How did you get there?

Anna Maria. I first became aware of you when I saw you fronting the media outside the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales last year, after the Kathleen Folbiggs conviction was overturned. How did you get there?

Oh, goodness. That was a four year journey, Michael. Um, the Australian Academy of Science became involved in the Folbigg case because of one of our fellows that's Professor Carola Vinuesa. And she was responsible for identifying the genetic variant that explained the death of the two Folbigg daughters. So Professor Carola Vinuesa came to me many years ago and was quite concerned about the way science had been treated or had not been heard in the first Folbigg inquiry, and she expressed that concern quite deeply, and took me through the evidence of the Folbigg inquiry as she saw it. And so the Australian Academy of Science began its journey then, and it continued right through to the point where it became an independent scientific adviser to the second inquiry.

Oh, goodness. That was a four year journey, Michael. Um, the Australian Academy of Science became involved in the Folbigg case because of one of our fellows that's Professor Carola Vinuesa. And she was responsible for identifying the genetic variant that explained the death of the two Folbigg daughters. So Professor Carola Vinuesa came to me many years ago and was quite concerned about the way science had been treated or had not been heard in the first Folbigg inquiry, and she expressed that concern quite deeply, and took me through the evidence of the Folbigg inquiry as she saw it. And so the Australian Academy of Science began its journey then, and it continued right through to the point where it became an independent scientific adviser to the second inquiry.

We spoke on this podcast a few weeks ago to Rani Rego, who was one of Kathleen Folbigg's lawyers. Obviously it was kind of a full court press. How important do you think the Australian Academy of Science's intervention was in getting that that inquiry through?

We spoke on this podcast a few weeks ago to Rani Rego, who was one of Kathleen Folbigg's lawyers. Obviously it was kind of a full court press. How important do you think the Australian Academy of Science's intervention was in getting that that inquiry through?

I think the role of the Australian Academy of Science was critical in leading to the second inquiry into Kathleen's convictions. It was in that inquiry that Kathleen's convictions, well, reasonable doubt was found and then her convictions were quashed. The role of the Academy was critical because I think we were able to bring a fresh voice to the case. We were able to step the inquiry through the fresh genetic evidence that was available, and it was particularly complex. So it required a fair bit of work in terms of identifying the right experts, in terms of communicating science to the commissioner and to counsel assisting and all those around counsel assisting in a way that was accessible and could be really understood and interpreted correctly by the justice system. So I think without our involvement, we probably wouldn't have seen the second inquiry. I mean.

I think the role of the Australian Academy of Science was critical in leading to the second inquiry into Kathleen's convictions. It was in that inquiry that Kathleen's convictions, well, reasonable doubt was found and then her convictions were quashed. The role of the Academy was critical because I think we were able to bring a fresh voice to the case. We were able to step the inquiry through the fresh genetic evidence that was available, and it was particularly complex. So it required a fair bit of work in terms of identifying the right experts, in terms of communicating science to the commissioner and to counsel assisting and all those around counsel assisting in a way that was accessible and could be really understood and interpreted correctly by the justice system. So I think without our involvement, we probably wouldn't have seen the second inquiry. I mean.

The courts are not necessarily well, they're not the forum for science, really, are they? But but that's something that you, I think since Folbigg have taken on as an interest personally. What's your background? What brings you to this point?

The courts are not necessarily well, they're not the forum for science, really, are they? But but that's something that you, I think since Folbigg have taken on as an interest personally. What's your background? What brings you to this point?

Michael, I'll say first, the courts have considered evidence, scientific and otherwise, forever, whether they've considered it well, whether they've been able to determine its reliability, whether they've been whether they have admitted in the past opinion rather than facts is another question. And that is a question that the Academy of Science is deeply concerned about and interested in assisting with. So my personal background is in neuroscience. I'm a I'm a scientist by training, but I've taken my scientific training and research into into management, into my role now as CEO of the Academy of Science, but also into policy development. And I have a very, very strong commitment. And the Academy of Sciences Commission is evidenced informed decision making. So that effectively means how do we make sure that decisions, wherever they're made, Michael, whether that's in our courts, in our parliaments, in our classrooms, in our boardrooms, wherever they are made, how do we ensure that those decisions are informed by evidence? And it's particularly important nowadays because we see so much mis and disinformation proliferating throughout our society. So the work of the Academy in evidence informed decision making has been long term, but I think is increasingly important in a society where we would hope decisions are made rationally, where decisions are made on factual information and where they're able to guide us to go forward. Of course, decisions are made for all sorts of reasons, and many, many different factors can lead to decision making, and that's perfectly acceptable. But we're strongly of the view at the Academy of Science that scientific evidence needs to be one of those factors in forming decisions wherever decisions are made.

Michael, I'll say first, the courts have considered evidence, scientific and otherwise, forever, whether they've considered it well, whether they've been able to determine its reliability, whether they've been whether they have admitted in the past opinion rather than facts is another question. And that is a question that the Academy of Science is deeply concerned about and interested in assisting with. So my personal background is in neuroscience. I'm a I'm a scientist by training, but I've taken my scientific training and research into into management, into my role now as CEO of the Academy of Science, but also into policy development. And I have a very, very strong commitment. And the Academy of Sciences Commission is evidenced informed decision making. So that effectively means how do we make sure that decisions, wherever they're made, Michael, whether that's in our courts, in our parliaments, in our classrooms, in our boardrooms, wherever they are made, how do we ensure that those decisions are informed by evidence? And it's particularly important nowadays because we see so much mis and disinformation proliferating throughout our society. So the work of the Academy in evidence informed decision making has been long term, but I think is increasingly important in a society where we would hope decisions are made rationally, where decisions are made on factual information and where they're able to guide us to go forward. Of course, decisions are made for all sorts of reasons, and many, many different factors can lead to decision making, and that's perfectly acceptable. But we're strongly of the view at the Academy of Science that scientific evidence needs to be one of those factors in forming decisions wherever decisions are made.

Anna Maria, I think you know that I'm working on this podcast, Trial by Water, which is looking at the case of Robert Farquharson, who drove his three sons into a dam in 2005, and he escaped, but the boys didn't. He was convicted of triple murder and is serving 33 years. And I'm looking pretty deeply at this for the podcast, but what do you think of that case?

Anna Maria, I think you know that I'm working on this podcast, Trial by Water, which is looking at the case of Robert Farquharson, who drove his three sons into a dam in 2005, and he escaped, but the boys didn't. He was convicted of triple murder and is serving 33 years. And I'm looking pretty deeply at this for the podcast, but what do you think of that case?

Well, it's an interesting case, and one that it seems clear that Robert Farquharson was convicted on evidence that was put before the trial. And he's had a couple of trials, and we have questions around the reliability of that evidence. So we look at this case through the lens of wishing to create a system that is as robust as it can be to deliver justice to all Australians. And I think an objective look at the strands of evidence that we use to convict Robert Farquharson does leave some questions that need to be answered.

Well, it's an interesting case, and one that it seems clear that Robert Farquharson was convicted on evidence that was put before the trial. And he's had a couple of trials, and we have questions around the reliability of that evidence. So we look at this case through the lens of wishing to create a system that is as robust as it can be to deliver justice to all Australians. And I think an objective look at the strands of evidence that we use to convict Robert Farquharson does leave some questions that need to be answered.

You say some of the strands of evidence were perhaps not scientific. In your view, what particular strands concern you?

You say some of the strands of evidence were perhaps not scientific. In your view, what particular strands concern you?

Michael? There are strands of evidence used to convict Robert Farquharson that wouldn't pass some basic scientific tests. So, for example, the reconstruction of the collision or the veering off the road into the dam used some models that have some question marks around it that warrant re-examination. Um, another important area of evidence that was presented and admitted to the courts went to memory evidence. So there were at least two witnesses who recounted their memory of certain events. One of those witnesses in particular, uh, recounted her memories four years after the event. We know scientifically that memory evidence is quite unreliable. Four years. Is an extraordinary amount of time for that memory to be changed and altered. We know that memories do get impacted by things like dreams or things like seeing media reports, reading media reports, seeing photos, speaking with people. Um, it's quite common for that to happen. Memories do change, or we can make ourselves believe that we have remembered something with great accuracy, when indeed that memory has been altered by external factors.

Michael? There are strands of evidence used to convict Robert Farquharson that wouldn't pass some basic scientific tests. So, for example, the reconstruction of the collision or the veering off the road into the dam used some models that have some question marks around it that warrant re-examination. Um, another important area of evidence that was presented and admitted to the courts went to memory evidence. So there were at least two witnesses who recounted their memory of certain events. One of those witnesses in particular, uh, recounted her memories four years after the event. We know scientifically that memory evidence is quite unreliable. Four years. Is an extraordinary amount of time for that memory to be changed and altered. We know that memories do get impacted by things like dreams or things like seeing media reports, reading media reports, seeing photos, speaking with people. Um, it's quite common for that to happen. Memories do change, or we can make ourselves believe that we have remembered something with great accuracy, when indeed that memory has been altered by external factors.

In fact, one of the memory witnesses that you mentioned was traumatised by what he'd remembered, but it's not necessarily clear that that memory was true. Is that possible?

In fact, one of the memory witnesses that you mentioned was traumatised by what he'd remembered, but it's not necessarily clear that that memory was true. Is that possible?

There's no doubt that memory can be influenced by a range of different factors, including trauma. So, you know, it is a relatively unreliable form of evidence. And that goes back to the very point that the Australian Academy of Science has been prosecuting, and that is the need for reliable evidence to be admitted in our courts. And at the moment in Australia, there is no reliability, standard or test that evidence is passed through to determine whether it should be admitted into a court or not. So that means that opinion, that means that pseudoscience and junk science can be admitted into court, and juries and judges will consider that as part of their deliberations. Um, I think most people would firstly be shocked by that, and secondly, would agree that that is not the best way that we can deliver justice or the best way that we should be informing our decisions in our courts of law.

There's no doubt that memory can be influenced by a range of different factors, including trauma. So, you know, it is a relatively unreliable form of evidence. And that goes back to the very point that the Australian Academy of Science has been prosecuting, and that is the need for reliable evidence to be admitted in our courts. And at the moment in Australia, there is no reliability, standard or test that evidence is passed through to determine whether it should be admitted into a court or not. So that means that opinion, that means that pseudoscience and junk science can be admitted into court, and juries and judges will consider that as part of their deliberations. Um, I think most people would firstly be shocked by that, and secondly, would agree that that is not the best way that we can deliver justice or the best way that we should be informing our decisions in our courts of law.

There's another parallel that in doing the podcast, I've discovered, I think, between the Folbigg case and the Farquharson case, and that is that a lot of the evidence against Folbigg was from the diaries that she appeared to be a bad mother, somebody who would write questionable things in her diaries. And in Farquharson's case, he's described as having failed the dad test that he didn't search adequately after the after the incident when at the site of the dam, when the children are still in the dam, that he asked people for cigarettes, that he kind of asked about himself at police interviews and this post event conduct, uh, was really held against him. Is that I mean, is that the kind of thing that disproportionately sways juries? Do you think.

There's another parallel that in doing the podcast, I've discovered, I think, between the Folbigg case and the Farquharson case, and that is that a lot of the evidence against Folbigg was from the diaries that she appeared to be a bad mother, somebody who would write questionable things in her diaries. And in Farquharson's case, he's described as having failed the dad test that he didn't search adequately after the after the incident when at the site of the dam, when the children are still in the dam, that he asked people for cigarettes, that he kind of asked about himself at police interviews and this post event conduct, uh, was really held against him. Is that I mean, is that the kind of thing that disproportionately sways juries? Do you think.

The short answer is yes. And I do believe that the media plays a role here as well. So very often we have expectations of how people should act in particular ways in society. All of those are often isolated from the circumstances of a particular case, are often not considered in the context of trauma, and not considered in the context of shock, which I imagine Robert Farquharson would have been experiencing when he emerged from that dam. Um, remembering that it was night time, it would have been cold, you know, just the entire situation would have been an overwhelmingly shocking one for him, for his being. Um, so I think it's easy on the outside to say, well, this is how someone ought to respond or this is how we we expect people to respond. We see this particularly of women all the time. We see we saw a judgement of Kathleen Folbigg's ability to be a mother, and every one of her actions used against her. We saw the same with Lindy Chamberlain. She didn't cry enough. She didn't act in a particular way. I think these can very much cloud judgment. I think they can lead to impressions that some then become stuck in people's minds. And this growing public feeling, I guess, about a particular case.

The short answer is yes. And I do believe that the media plays a role here as well. So very often we have expectations of how people should act in particular ways in society. All of those are often isolated from the circumstances of a particular case, are often not considered in the context of trauma, and not considered in the context of shock, which I imagine Robert Farquharson would have been experiencing when he emerged from that dam. Um, remembering that it was night time, it would have been cold, you know, just the entire situation would have been an overwhelmingly shocking one for him, for his being. Um, so I think it's easy on the outside to say, well, this is how someone ought to respond or this is how we we expect people to respond. We see this particularly of women all the time. We see we saw a judgement of Kathleen Folbigg's ability to be a mother, and every one of her actions used against her. We saw the same with Lindy Chamberlain. She didn't cry enough. She didn't act in a particular way. I think these can very much cloud judgment. I think they can lead to impressions that some then become stuck in people's minds. And this growing public feeling, I guess, about a particular case.

In the Farquarson case, I read, it was people saying things like, if the kids were going to go down, I'd have gone down with them. Men saying that, you know, I would have huddled together and said to them, okay, we're going together. That seems to be the sort of social expectation of the father in this circumstance. But that's just unrealistic, isn't it?

In the Farquarson case, I read, it was people saying things like, if the kids were going to go down, I'd have gone down with them. Men saying that, you know, I would have huddled together and said to them, okay, we're going together. That seems to be the sort of social expectation of the father in this circumstance. But that's just unrealistic, isn't it?

It is unrealistic. I mean, none of us can imagine what it's like to be at the bottom of a of a dam in the dark and potentially not even knowing where you are, to then make some rational decision that says, I'm going to go down with my children as a active, rational thought is I just think completely, you know, unrealistic and is not information that we should be using to determine the outcomes of justice in Australia.

It is unrealistic. I mean, none of us can imagine what it's like to be at the bottom of a of a dam in the dark and potentially not even knowing where you are, to then make some rational decision that says, I'm going to go down with my children as a active, rational thought is I just think completely, you know, unrealistic and is not information that we should be using to determine the outcomes of justice in Australia.

But two juries did that, and the appeal court in the second appeal, there was two appeals as well. It found very clearly that those things could be used to bolster the the Crown case, the case against Robert Farquharson. So you know, I mean we kind of trust our legal system, don't we, to to deliver justice, to deliver finality, to say, okay, case closed.

But two juries did that, and the appeal court in the second appeal, there was two appeals as well. It found very clearly that those things could be used to bolster the the Crown case, the case against Robert Farquharson. So you know, I mean we kind of trust our legal system, don't we, to to deliver justice, to deliver finality, to say, okay, case closed.

We do we do trust our justice system and we have good reason to as I said earlier, most of the time they get it right, but they're not infallible. And we do need to put in place checks and balances to make sure that the decisions that have been made, because courts do need to arrive at a decision, they can't keep cases open forever just in case there's new evidence. It's not it can't be open to new research. Judges need to make decisions and close cases. But with that, we know that sometimes those decisions will be wrong. And that's why we have the appeal system. But sometimes even that lets individuals down. And we've seen that with wrongful convictions in Australia and abroad. And there do need to be mechanisms to first ensure that evidence is reliable and that we can test that, and secondly, to enable review of cases where it's warranted. After all, those appeal mechanisms have been exhausted.

We do we do trust our justice system and we have good reason to as I said earlier, most of the time they get it right, but they're not infallible. And we do need to put in place checks and balances to make sure that the decisions that have been made, because courts do need to arrive at a decision, they can't keep cases open forever just in case there's new evidence. It's not it can't be open to new research. Judges need to make decisions and close cases. But with that, we know that sometimes those decisions will be wrong. And that's why we have the appeal system. But sometimes even that lets individuals down. And we've seen that with wrongful convictions in Australia and abroad. And there do need to be mechanisms to first ensure that evidence is reliable and that we can test that, and secondly, to enable review of cases where it's warranted. After all, those appeal mechanisms have been exhausted.

There is another appeal available under the Victorian system, a second appeal when evidence is fresh and compelling. And in this case, the lawyers seem to be looking at doing that later this year. Is that enough?

There is another appeal available under the Victorian system, a second appeal when evidence is fresh and compelling. And in this case, the lawyers seem to be looking at doing that later this year. Is that enough?

Well, I think that those appeal mechanisms that exist are excellent. In the case of Kathleen Folbigg, it wasn't enough. She needed another opportunity when the fresh genetic evidence came to light to reopen her case. And there was no mechanism to do that other than to ask the New South Wales governor to, um, recommend, well, the New South Wales Attorney-General to to recommend um, that she be pardoned under New South Wales law. So a mercy plea effectively now it was a petition to ask for her release from jail that led to that second inquiry. And so it established a new process. But this was after all of the appeals were exhausted and after a very, very long fight. So is it enough? No, it probably isn't enough. And I think there does need to be an opportunity after appeals are exhausted, for new information to be considered. Now, that's not any old information. We can't just open cases just because, you know, there's a fresh bit of little bit of information. There needs to be a threshold that has to be met. Um, and that's how, uh, post appeal, uh, review mechanisms work in other parts of the world. In the case of Robert Farquharson, he has this opportunity before him. He should take it. My understanding is that there is medical evidence that is being brought forward that goes to coughing syncopes. And that's when you cough so vigorously that it leads to a fainting episode.

Well, I think that those appeal mechanisms that exist are excellent. In the case of Kathleen Folbigg, it wasn't enough. She needed another opportunity when the fresh genetic evidence came to light to reopen her case. And there was no mechanism to do that other than to ask the New South Wales governor to, um, recommend, well, the New South Wales Attorney-General to to recommend um, that she be pardoned under New South Wales law. So a mercy plea effectively now it was a petition to ask for her release from jail that led to that second inquiry. And so it established a new process. But this was after all of the appeals were exhausted and after a very, very long fight. So is it enough? No, it probably isn't enough. And I think there does need to be an opportunity after appeals are exhausted, for new information to be considered. Now, that's not any old information. We can't just open cases just because, you know, there's a fresh bit of little bit of information. There needs to be a threshold that has to be met. Um, and that's how, uh, post appeal, uh, review mechanisms work in other parts of the world. In the case of Robert Farquharson, he has this opportunity before him. He should take it. My understanding is that there is medical evidence that is being brought forward that goes to coughing syncopes. And that's when you cough so vigorously that it leads to a fainting episode.

Then that was Robert Farquharson's. Um, that that was his argument in both trials that he'd coughed and passed out and was indeed unconscious when the car went into the dam. So so that was pretty well litigated. There was experts on either side.

Then that was Robert Farquharson's. Um, that that was his argument in both trials that he'd coughed and passed out and was indeed unconscious when the car went into the dam. So so that was pretty well litigated. There was experts on either side.

Well, this is another similarity with the Folbigg case. Um, sometimes we don't have the right experts in the room. I think it's really quite important, particularly as new scientific knowledge comes to light. And there is a lot of scientific knowledge generated every single day that we have the most qualified person giving evidence to our justice system. In the Kathleen Folbigg case, and possibly in the Robert Farquharson case, the right experts were not ask questions within their field of expertise, such as to give the latest possible science, um, to present that to the first inquiry. For Kathleen Folbigg, that didn't happen. So my understanding is that there are experts in relation to coughing syncope. That are able to explain it and that are able to contextualize that condition in Robert Farquharson and other episodes that he has experienced, which I think is new and important medical information that needs to be considered. And hopefully the Victorian system will re-examine that case and give him the opportunity to do that. But you know what the Robert Farquharson case shows, as the Kathleen Folbigg case showed, is that we need various changes, reforms, refinements to our legal system to deal with these things. So one is the independent selection of experts. How do we get the right experts before our judges and juries are selected for the right reasons, not because they're relied upon by the prosecution, because they're good presenters in court, but because they are the best possible expert who has the best available knowledge.

Well, this is another similarity with the Folbigg case. Um, sometimes we don't have the right experts in the room. I think it's really quite important, particularly as new scientific knowledge comes to light. And there is a lot of scientific knowledge generated every single day that we have the most qualified person giving evidence to our justice system. In the Kathleen Folbigg case, and possibly in the Robert Farquharson case, the right experts were not ask questions within their field of expertise, such as to give the latest possible science, um, to present that to the first inquiry. For Kathleen Folbigg, that didn't happen. So my understanding is that there are experts in relation to coughing syncope. That are able to explain it and that are able to contextualize that condition in Robert Farquharson and other episodes that he has experienced, which I think is new and important medical information that needs to be considered. And hopefully the Victorian system will re-examine that case and give him the opportunity to do that. But you know what the Robert Farquharson case shows, as the Kathleen Folbigg case showed, is that we need various changes, reforms, refinements to our legal system to deal with these things. So one is the independent selection of experts. How do we get the right experts before our judges and juries are selected for the right reasons, not because they're relied upon by the prosecution, because they're good presenters in court, but because they are the best possible expert who has the best available knowledge.

The system at the moment is that the prosecution chooses their expert, presumably the best one, to advance their case. The defence chooses their expert, and then the jury of laypeople have to adjudicate between these conflicting stories.

The system at the moment is that the prosecution chooses their expert, presumably the best one, to advance their case. The defence chooses their expert, and then the jury of laypeople have to adjudicate between these conflicting stories.

It is such a hyper adversarial situation, and what ends up happening is that those experts are asked about matters that are well beyond their area of expertise. They are often asked to answer in yes no ways. Where we know with science there is a lot of grey, and you do need time to take juries and judges through through that grey. Um, it can lead to mis misleading evidence being presented. Sometimes experts feel very manipulated in that system. I can't tell you how many experts come to the Australian Academy of Science, having been expert witnesses in a case, thinking they're doing the right thing and have felt so, um, I guess cornered or manipulated in that process that they will never they state they will never do it again. What a great loss for our justice system that some of the most reliable and best minds in our country feel that that is a forum where they can't present their knowledge. We're all poorer for that. And there are other ways that this can be done. And we demonstrated that in the Kathleen Folbigg case.

It is such a hyper adversarial situation, and what ends up happening is that those experts are asked about matters that are well beyond their area of expertise. They are often asked to answer in yes no ways. Where we know with science there is a lot of grey, and you do need time to take juries and judges through through that grey. Um, it can lead to mis misleading evidence being presented. Sometimes experts feel very manipulated in that system. I can't tell you how many experts come to the Australian Academy of Science, having been expert witnesses in a case, thinking they're doing the right thing and have felt so, um, I guess cornered or manipulated in that process that they will never they state they will never do it again. What a great loss for our justice system that some of the most reliable and best minds in our country feel that that is a forum where they can't present their knowledge. We're all poorer for that. And there are other ways that this can be done. And we demonstrated that in the Kathleen Folbigg case.

You're also calling for what you call a post-conviction review mechanism. What does that do?

You're also calling for what you call a post-conviction review mechanism. What does that do?

Yeah, a post-appeal review mechanism says that once you've exhausted all of your appeals, you have an opportunity to reopen a case where there is fresh evidence. So so how would that work effectively? If there is fresh evidence, it could go to a panel, a multidisciplinary panel of experts that would look at that and say, yes, this is of sufficient weight that would warrant the re-examination of this case. And so that advice could go back to the justice system to ultimately make the decision as to whether the case should be reopened and how, through an inquiry, through another trial, whatever that process might be. But it does enable that new and fresh evidence to be tested and to be tested in the context of, uh, of the particular case at hand. It doesn't mean every person who is convicted in jail would have their case reprosecuted it would be used where there is new, fresh, and compelling and reliable evidence that could determine or change the outcome of a case. Countries around the world have adopted these post-appeal review mechanisms. In the UK, we've got the Criminal Case Review Commission. There's New Zealand, Norway, Canada. Australia really is an outlier in this area. Um, we would do well to establish something like a criminal case review commission for the analysis of new evidence as it comes to hand, and to determine whether a case needs to be prosecuted.

Yeah, a post-appeal review mechanism says that once you've exhausted all of your appeals, you have an opportunity to reopen a case where there is fresh evidence. So so how would that work effectively? If there is fresh evidence, it could go to a panel, a multidisciplinary panel of experts that would look at that and say, yes, this is of sufficient weight that would warrant the re-examination of this case. And so that advice could go back to the justice system to ultimately make the decision as to whether the case should be reopened and how, through an inquiry, through another trial, whatever that process might be. But it does enable that new and fresh evidence to be tested and to be tested in the context of, uh, of the particular case at hand. It doesn't mean every person who is convicted in jail would have their case reprosecuted it would be used where there is new, fresh, and compelling and reliable evidence that could determine or change the outcome of a case. Countries around the world have adopted these post-appeal review mechanisms. In the UK, we've got the Criminal Case Review Commission. There's New Zealand, Norway, Canada. Australia really is an outlier in this area. Um, we would do well to establish something like a criminal case review commission for the analysis of new evidence as it comes to hand, and to determine whether a case needs to be prosecuted.

So in the absence of a post-conviction review mechanism, we're often left with lawyers working pro bono because their clients are in prison and journalists to take another look at cases in that context. Annamaria, I just wanted to finish by asking you about your seeing a movie called Just Mercy recently, which looks at a cold case or a wrongful conviction case in the US, and a man I think is on death row, and it takes a media intervention to to have it looked at again and how that sort of fed into your thinking on this.

So in the absence of a post-conviction review mechanism, we're often left with lawyers working pro bono because their clients are in prison and journalists to take another look at cases in that context. Annamaria, I just wanted to finish by asking you about your seeing a movie called Just Mercy recently, which looks at a cold case or a wrongful conviction case in the US, and a man I think is on death row, and it takes a media intervention to to have it looked at again and how that sort of fed into your thinking on this.

I had the opportunity to fly to Rwanda for work, and long haul flights are good for catching a movie or two. I've got to say, I'm relatively time poor and I don't tend to do that, but just mercy for me was yet another example of, uh, discriminatory behavior leading to an outcome in that case in amongst the black community of of the US. In another time, an era um, but it, it required pro bono work by lawyers. As you've said, it required a 60 minutes program. It required the media to intervene and to make it uncomfortable and difficult for those who hold most power for, uh, this particular case to be reopened. And while it's a movie, actually it had all of the elements, um, of what we see, of what we saw with Kathleen Folbigg, what we're seeing with Robert Farquharson. And it shouldn't take those things that the system ought to be more robust than it is. And it can be, um, it can be reformed. It takes some political will. It takes some courage. Um, it takes attorney generals across attorneys general, across Australia, uh, to roll up their sleeves, um, and commit to looking at improving the system so that they can deliver justice for everyone equally.

I had the opportunity to fly to Rwanda for work, and long haul flights are good for catching a movie or two. I've got to say, I'm relatively time poor and I don't tend to do that, but just mercy for me was yet another example of, uh, discriminatory behavior leading to an outcome in that case in amongst the black community of of the US. In another time, an era um, but it, it required pro bono work by lawyers. As you've said, it required a 60 minutes program. It required the media to intervene and to make it uncomfortable and difficult for those who hold most power for, uh, this particular case to be reopened. And while it's a movie, actually it had all of the elements, um, of what we see, of what we saw with Kathleen Folbigg, what we're seeing with Robert Farquharson. And it shouldn't take those things that the system ought to be more robust than it is. And it can be, um, it can be reformed. It takes some political will. It takes some courage. Um, it takes attorney generals across attorneys general, across Australia, uh, to roll up their sleeves, um, and commit to looking at improving the system so that they can deliver justice for everyone equally.

Have you had any luck with the attorneys general?

Have you had any luck with the attorneys general?

It's a work in progress. Um, so I'll just say watch this space. But, uh, the discussions are ongoing.

It's a work in progress. Um, so I'll just say watch this space. But, uh, the discussions are ongoing.

I'll just give a little plug to the work that we, at The Age and Sydney Morning Herald have been doing on this case. Trial by Water is an investigative podcast that looks really hard at the evidence in the Robert Farquharson case, and that's that's out today.

I'll just give a little plug to the work that we, at The Age and Sydney Morning Herald have been doing on this case. Trial by Water is an investigative podcast that looks really hard at the evidence in the Robert Farquharson case, and that's that's out today.

And to be commended, thank you for your actual years, I think, of work on this and getting across all of the detail. None of that comes easy and without commitment. So we'll strength to you, Michael.

And to be commended, thank you for your actual years, I think, of work on this and getting across all of the detail. None of that comes easy and without commitment. So we'll strength to you, Michael.

Good on you. Thanks very much, Anna Maria. It's been a delight speaking to you.

Good on you. Thanks very much, Anna Maria. It's been a delight speaking to you.

Thanks very much.

Thanks very much.

Good weekend. Talks is brought to you by the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Subscriptions power our newsrooms to support independent journalism. Search, subscribe Sydney Morning Herald or The Age? And if you enjoyed this episode, please remember to subscribe, rate and comment wherever you get your podcasts. This episode of Good Weekend Talks is produced by Kai Wong. Technical assistance from Cormac Lally and Debbie Harrington. Editing from Konrad Marshall. Tom McKendrick is head of audio and Katrina Strickland is the editor of Good Weekend.

Good weekend. Talks is brought to you by the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Subscriptions power our newsrooms to support independent journalism. Search, subscribe Sydney Morning Herald or The Age? And if you enjoyed this episode, please remember to subscribe, rate and comment wherever you get your podcasts. This episode of Good Weekend Talks is produced by Kai Wong. Technical assistance from Cormac Lally and Debbie Harrington. Editing from Konrad Marshall. Tom McKendrick is head of audio and Katrina Strickland is the editor of Good Weekend.