Somewhere in the bowels of South Australian Attorney-General Kyam Maher’s department lies a year-old request to remedy a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The miscarriage is grave because the defending barrister told the jury his client, Raymond John Bailey, was guilty of murder despite evidence to the contrary.
And Bailey was hanged by the state in 1958 for murder despite the prosecution contesting its principal evidence.
The evidence is plain. Analysis of the case reveals Bailey did not receive a fair trial due to gross incompetence by his barrister Arthur Pickering QC.
On May 18 2023 I applied to the minister for a referral of the case to the South Australian Court of Appeal.
I said: “In view of the number of very troubling aspects of R v Bailey, I am respectfully asking that the matter be referred to the Court of Appeal for a judicial determination as to whether the conviction should stand.
“It is appreciated that Bailey was hanged in 1958 but I hope you will agree that for the sake of his 89-year-old sister and other family members, justice should not have a time limit. If a person has been wrongly convicted, particularly for a capital crime, the decision should be corrected.”
The case involves the murder of Thyra Bowman, aged 43, her daughter Wendy, 14, and family friend Thomas Whelan, 22, on or about December 5 1957 in remote bushland on the abandoned Sundown Station, Northern Territory, while camping.
Bailey was arrested by corrupt Queensland detective Glen Hallahan in Mt Isa, north-west Queensland, on January 21 1958 and charged with the murder of Thyra Bowman after Adelaide police had announced his car was the subject of a nationwide search.
He was found guilty at Adelaide Supreme Court on May 20 1958 by a jury which deliberated for only an hour and 28 minutes and he was hanged just over a month later.
There are many more examples of Pickering’s gross incompetence.
He failed to cross-examine witnesses regarding the fact that the description of the killings in an alleged confession - the prosecution's only direct evidence - was completely contradicted by the facts.
He failed to establish Bailey could not have been guilty because his shoe size did not match footprints left by the murderer at the murder scene.
He failed to cross-examine prosecution evidence that a woman had driven a car to dispose of the bodies despite Bailey's statement that his wife, who was travelling with him, did not know how to drive - meaning Bailey could not have been the murderer.
He told the court "There is no ground to suggest there was any threat or promise” in obtaining the alleged confession, thus contradicting Bailey's statement that police had threatened to keep questioning his wife until he confessed and had promised to leave her alone if he signed.
He failed to focus the jury's attention on the mis-identification of the murder weapon in the alleged confession.
Having accepted police allegations that Bailey had confessed, he relied at trial and on appeal on the narrow ground that, according to Detective Hallahan, Bailey was not warned about his right to silence until after having made an alleged confession - and failed to cross-examine or make an appeal submission that the reason the confession was factually incorrect was that it had been fabricated.
These and other examples of Pickering's incompetence are in addition to other disturbing features of the case which I enumerated in the 12,000 word application.
His diary for 1958 shows he was often hungover and that in the period leading up to the trial he spent more time preparing for a commercial case rather than Bailey’s life and death battle.
Two letters to the Minister requesting a progress report on my request have resulted in the response: Please be advised that the matter is still receiving attention. The issues raised in your correspondence are legally complex and therefore require proper attention and consideration.”
Somewhere in the bowels of South Australian Attorney-General Kyam Maher’s department lies a year-old request to remedy a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The miscarriage is grave because the defending barrister told the jury his client, Raymond John Bailey, was guilty of murder despite evidence to the contrary.
And Bailey was hanged by the state in 1958 for murder despite the prosecution contesting its principal evidence.
The evidence is plain. Analysis of the case reveals Bailey did not receive a fair trial due to gross incompetence by his barrister Arthur Pickering QC.
On May 18 2023 I applied to the minister for a referral of the case to the South Australian Court of Appeal.
I said: “In view of the number of very troubling aspects of R v Bailey, I am respectfully asking that the matter be referred to the Court of Appeal for a judicial determination as to whether the conviction should stand.
“It is appreciated that Bailey was hanged in 1958 but I hope you will agree that for the sake of his 89-year-old sister and other family members, justice should not have a time limit. If a person has been wrongly convicted, particularly for a capital crime, the decision should be corrected.”
The case involves the murder of Thyra Bowman, aged 43, her daughter Wendy, 14, and family friend Thomas Whelan, 22, on or about December 5 1957 in remote bushland on the abandoned Sundown Station, Northern Territory, while camping.
Bailey was arrested by corrupt Queensland detective Glen Hallahan in Mt Isa, north-west Queensland, on January 21 1958 and charged with the murder of Thyra Bowman after Adelaide police had announced his car was the subject of a nationwide search.
He was found guilty at Adelaide Supreme Court on May 20 1958 by a jury which deliberated for only an hour and 28 minutes and he was hanged just over a month later.
There are many more examples of Pickering’s gross incompetence.
He failed to cross-examine witnesses regarding the fact that the description of the killings in an alleged confession - the prosecution's only direct evidence - was completely contradicted by the facts.
He failed to establish Bailey could not have been guilty because his shoe size did not match footprints left by the murderer at the murder scene.
He failed to cross-examine prosecution evidence that a woman had driven a car to dispose of the bodies despite Bailey's statement that his wife, who was travelling with him, did not know how to drive - meaning Bailey could not have been the murderer.
He told the court "There is no ground to suggest there was any threat or promise” in obtaining the alleged confession, thus contradicting Bailey's statement that police had threatened to keep questioning his wife until he confessed and had promised to leave her alone if he signed.
He failed to focus the jury's attention on the mis-identification of the murder weapon in the alleged confession.
Having accepted police allegations that Bailey had confessed, he relied at trial and on appeal on the narrow ground that, according to Detective Hallahan, Bailey was not warned about his right to silence until after having made an alleged confession - and failed to cross-examine or make an appeal submission that the reason the confession was factually incorrect was that it had been fabricated.
These and other examples of Pickering's incompetence are in addition to other disturbing features of the case which I enumerated in the 12,000 word application.
His diary for 1958 shows he was often hungover and that in the period leading up to the trial he spent more time preparing for a commercial case rather than Bailey’s life and death battle.
Two letters to the Minister requesting a progress report on my request have resulted in the response: Please be advised that the matter is still receiving attention. The issues raised in your correspondence are legally complex and therefore require proper attention and consideration.”
RSS Feed
