My full name is Francis Leonard Lippett.
Relevant experience
Between 1965 and 1974 I was a Queensland Police Officer, serving primarily as a detective at the Brisbane and environs Criminal Investigation Branch. From 1974 to 1978 I was a detective with the then Commonwealth (now Federal) Police. Between 1979 and 2019 I was a barrister in practice at the private Bar in Queensland and New South Wales, with occasional forays into South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.
While in practice I held part-time appointments as the president of the Brisbane and then the Queensland Corrections Board (Parole Boards), and later as president of the renamed Queensland Parole Board. Parole Board work spanned about nineteen years, for three of which I was also the vice-president of the Association of Paroling Authorities International.
When a Queensland detective, I was put to work with Glen Patrick Hallahan for about three weeks until he requested another partner, as we had quite different standards and attitudes. Throughout my Police service and afterwards, Hallahan, another detective named Murphy and Terry Lewis who became the Police Commissioner, were reputed to be involved in serious criminal and corrupt activity. It was not just inappropriate office gossip, but a series of accusations by a number of respected detectives, although hard evidence was lacking. His propensity to fabricate evidence was confirmed by at least three Courts, as detailed by the petitioner. Hallahan had died by the time his close acquaintance Terry Lewis was charged and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
My experience and observations during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was that the fabrication of a confession (“the verbal”) was a weapon regularly wielded by corrupt detectives, who did not hesitate to boast about it to their workmates. The social climate of the time was that some judges, magistrates and juries were aghast at the proposition that a Police Officer would tell a lie, and believed unhesitatingly that the only person not telling the truth was the defendant. That view increased the boldness of corrupt police. During my eight years as an active detective, which involved giving evidence a number of times, my evidence was not ever challenged. Further, proper investigation most often resulted in the offender pleading Guilty.
Material considered
I have read the Petition and supporting documents as well as the Judgment of the Supreme Court (in Banco) which dismissed Bailey’s appeal. The thoroughness and accuracy of Mr Bishop’s material cannot be disputed; and it is not intended to regurgitate it, but to highlight some aspects about which I believe I am qualified to comment.
Association with the Petitioners
I have met only one of the Petitioners, Judge Howell. Until reading the material, I had not heard of Bailey’s case.
Submission as to what would be a just outcome
In my respectful submission, it would be just to either pardon Bailey, or quash his conviction. If those outcomes are thought too extreme at this stage, then the case could be thoroughly and fully ventilated in the Court of Appeal as a first step. It is not suggested that the Supreme Court erred in 1958. However it is now possible to consider the evidence in the light of what is now known about the activities of Glen Patrick Hallahan, without whose evidence the prosecution would have surely failed.
The confession/s
At trial and on appeal, defence counsel relied upon the narrow ground that Bailey was not warned about his right to silence until it was too late, in contravention of the Judges’ Rules. There was no cross-examination or appeal submission alleging that either the confession to Hallahan or the refinement of it by the South Australia detectives was fabricated.
That may have been due to inadvertence or may have been a deliberate tactic, given the community’s general unwillingness to accept that Police Officers perjured themselves. It is noted that defence counsel wrote in his diary that Bailey would be “sunk” if he gave evidence. That view may have been the product of a belief that Bailey was guilty and would not fare well in cross-examination; or it could have been because he knew Bailey would claim that he did not confess, and that proposition was likely to be rejected by the jury.
Whatever the reason, it is submitted that the flaws in the fabricated confession/s raise more than a reasonable doubt about Bailey’s likely guilt.
Flaws and contradictions in confession
The contents of the alleged confession are to be considered in the light of Hallahan’s concession at trial that when he interviewed Bailey, he had only “a summary” of the murders.
Method of killing
The pathologist’s opinion was that all three victims had their skulls fractured before being shot; and in his opinion they were all killed where they were found. But according to the confession, Bailey took all the victims to another place some distance away after killing them.
The confession also had him saying that he shot Thyra Bowman as she walked towards him. The pathologist said she was shot in the back of the neck as she lay face down on the ground. The confession claims Bailey said he hit Wendy Bowman on the head with the rifle butt, causing her to fall down. Then he shot her as she was getting up. The pathologist said
she was shot through the head while lying on the ground with the right side of her face facing downwards.
The weapon
Bailey obtained a Huntsman rifle before leaving South Australia, but did not have it in his possession when searched at Mt Isa, and explained the disposition of it. The victims were in possession of a Sportsman rifle. There are distinct differences in appearance between the two.
The confession claims Bailey said that he saw his rifle, broken and covered in blood, on the front seat (of a car) at the scene. The only rifle at the scene was broken and had blood on it, but it was the Bowman’s Sportsman.
That means, according to the confession, there was sufficient light available for Bailey to see that the gun was broken, and was able to see blood stains, but was not able to discern that it was not his rifle.
It is emphasised that on his own admission, Hallahan was not in possession of the details of the murder scene when he interviewed Bailey.
The confession claimed that Bailey said he threw the murder weapon, his rifle, out the car window after leaving the murder scene and before arriving at Alice Springs. There was substantial publicity about a search that the police said was to be made, in company with Bailey, for the missing weapon. There were even blacktrackers engaged to help. However at trial it was conceded by a South Australia detective, one Moran, that no search for the weapon took place, with or without Bailey.
It is submitted that the only likely reason to call off a planned and announced search would be because other police realised, or suspected, or were told by Hallahan, that the rifle would not be found because he had fabricated that part of the confession.
The father-in-law
While at Mt Isa, Bailey made arrangements for his father-in-law, a Mr Hudson, to travel from his home in Dubbo to Mt Isa to visit him at the police station. That visit, according to Hallahan, started at 7.30pm on Saturday 25 January 1957. Hallahan claimed that in his presence, Bailey confessed to his father-in-law. Bailey later denied having done so.
If Hallahan’s version of events was the truth, then it would have been fundamental police practice to obtain a written statement from Mr Hudson as to what Bailey had said as soon as possible, given the extreme importance of his evidence as a relative who was able to give sworn evidence of admissions of guilt. Astonishingly, it seems Hallahan did not obtain a written statement from Mr Hudson.
The only written record which was created about the alleged conversation was made by Hallahan, and that almost a month after the conversation took place. Hallahan’s record was created on Friday 21st February. The committal proceedings were listed to commence on Monday 24th February.
At the commencement of the trial, the Crown Prosecutor told the jury that Mr Hudson would be an important witness. However he was not called by the Crown, and no reason was advanced by the Crown for the omission to call him. It is submitted that the likely reason to not call such an important witness was that the Crown Prosecutor was either told, or came to believe, that Mr Hudson could not confirm Hallahan’s version of the conversation.
Bailey told the Court that he believed Mr Hudson did not attend because he had the mumps. But there was no medical or other evidence adduced to indicate either that Mr Hudson was sick, or that he could not travel to the Court. And it was the Crown’s responsibility to deal with the situation, not the accused’s. The Crown Prosecutor could have sought an adjournment until Mr Hudson was able to attend. The fact that the Prosecutor did not do so leaves the inference open that a forensic reason emerged for the Crown not wanting him present.
Hallahan’s reliability
Bailey and his wife were travelling in a black de Soto car. There is a plethora of evidence that the South Australia investigators told other Police, including those at Mt Isa, that they were interested in speaking with the occupants of a black de Soto in connection with the murders.
Hallahan gave evidence that he saw a black de Soto with South Australia registration at 5.00pm in Mt Isa, and waited nearby until 6.20pm when the occupant (Bailey) returned to the vehicle. It was then that Hallahan and his partner, a Detective Pfingst, started to question Bailey about his ownership of the vehicle. In Court, Hallahan claimed he did not know at that time that the vehicle was of interest to the murder investigators, but alleged the two detectives were watching the car because “of information received.” If that was the truth, the information must have been about the acquisition of the car by false pretences, with which Bailey was later charged. It is to be noted that Hallahan claimed to have not been told the registration number of the wanted car before his afternoon watch.
In other words, on Hallahan’s version of events, he was ignorant of the South Australia police notices of interest in the vehicle over the murders, despite being a detective in a small town on a main outback route from the Northern Territory to Queensland. But he did receive information about a fraud concerning the same car from the same State, even though it related only to a de Soto car with an unknown registration number.
Second, there is the aspect of Hallahan’s interview with Bailey. When he questioned him about the car, and charged him with false pretences, he had Detective Pfingst with him. That accorded with standard police practice to have a corroborator present who could give evidence of what was said.
However there was a curious system employed by Hallahan when Bailey was interviewed about the murder. The District Inspector at the time was a man named Norwin Bauer. Hallahan questioned Bailey about the murder on 22 January, between 10.30am and 1.30pm. In evidence, Hallahan said: “Bauer was present for most of the interrogation. He went out on quite a few occasions.” Hallahan said he cautioned Bailey about his right to silence at 12.15pm, and that Bauer was present when the caution was administered “and was present thereafter.” He gave evidence that the interview continued for “about twenty-five minutes” after the caution.
Several points arise from that evidence. First, the only reference to Bauer in Hallahan’s statement for Court was that Bauer was present when Bailey was cautioned at 12.15pm, and was present for the remaining twenty-five minutes of the interview. It was only when giving evidence that he first mentioned that Bauer was present intermittently between 1030am and 1215. The obvious question is why an investigating detective would not have mentioned the
whole involvement of the District Inspector in his Court statement, if Bauer was in truth present earlier.
Second, it appears from the material that Bauer was not called to give evidence even though, at least potentially, he could have given evidence corroborating the confession, if it had been made. It beggars belief that the Crown Prosecutor would not either call him, or at least have him at Court in case the genuineness of the confession was challenged. Third, there must be only a small likelihood of the District Inspector being used as a silent witness during a murder interrogation, rather than another detective such as Pfingst who was present during the previous day’s interviews about the car, or a uniform Police Officer.
Fourth, Hallahan’s claim that Bauer was absent from the interrogation “on quite a few occasions” means that even if Bauer had been sometimes present, there was ample opportunity for Hallahan to apply his over-bearing and intimidating tricks without a witness; and also to be able to claim Bailey had confessed when Bauer was absent. Further, the likelihood of the District Inspector offering or agreeing to the corroborator’s role, but then not remaining in the room for three hours must be remote. It has to be highly unlikely that matters of urgent district importance arose several times during a two hour period (10.30am to 12.15pm) on a Tuesday in Mt Isa.
Fifth, this is the only occasion on which I have experienced or been told that a detective noted the specific time a caution was administered. There is no point in doing so in the event of a genuine confession and genuine caution. But if both were fabricated, a note of the time of the alleged caution might bolster the stocks of the detective in the minds of the jury, in that he would be seen as a thorough and meticulous person. The whole of Hallahan’s evidence about Bauer smacks of falsity.
Identification evidence
After Bailey had been charged, his car was taken to a police holding yard. Kulgera is a small town about twenty kilometres north of the South Australia border, on the road to Alice Springs. The Kulgera storekeeper, a Mr Wilkinson, was interviewed and taken to the holding yard to view the vehicle. The prosecution case included an allegation that Bailey bought petrol at Wilkinson’s store.
Mr Wilkinson gave evidence at the committal proceedings about a black car having passed through Kulgera, but he was unable to recall details. However at the trial he was definite about the car and the date on which he saw it. Mr Wilkinson said his memory was improved by seeing Bailey’s car at the police holding yard.
Importantly, when asked about identification of the car’s occupant, Mr Wilkinson looked directly at Bailey, and said: “I have never seen this man before this Court case.”
There does not appear to have been any connection between Mr Wilkinson and Bailey. He was just a storekeeper from a small town giving honest evidence. His certainty of never having previously seen Bailey should have raised a doubt in the jury’s collective mind. But it did not, highlighting the importance of the confessional evidence.
Footprints
There was evidence that some shoeprints of varying sizes were found at the murder scene. They were estimated to be between sizes seven and ten. Bailey’s shoe size was five and a half or six, depending on the brand of shoe. Once again, the discrepancy should have caused the jury some concern. But again the belief in the truth of the fabricated confessions carried the day.
Defence counsel
Defence counsel in criminal cases must sometimes make important but difficult tactical decisions. Often there are simpler alternatives, but counsel usually try to make the decision which will be most likely to help the client. In so doing, tactical mistakes can be made. In the present case, it could be that counsel did not prepare as thoroughly as would be expected, as the petition suggests. Alternatively it could be that the wrong tactics were chosen.
It was not put to Hallahan that the confession was a fabrication, and he was not subjected to rigorous cross-examination about its flaws and contradictions. And it was not put to the South Australia detectives that they refined the confession to make it better align with the evidence. Consequently the jury did not have an opportunity to even consider the possible falsity of the confessional evidence.
As the Crown did not call the father-in-law Mr Hudson as opened, defence counsel could have done so, or sought an adjournment if the witness was ill. Not doing so deprived Bailey of an important opportunity. According to Bailey’s statement, which presumably was in line with his instructions, Hudson’s evidence would have been that Bailey did not confess to him.
Hallahan should have been cross-examined about the falsity of that part of his statement and then evidence led from Hudson about there not having been a confession in his presence. In relation to the alleged confession to Hallahan, to not cross-examine about it being fabricated but to rely only on the narrow ground of a caution not having been made earlier than it was, was a serious error.
Conclusion
I accept and unreservedly endorse the worth of all the contents of the petition. This statement is intended to reinforce some of the points already made, from the perspective of personal experience.
My ultimate submission is that the system of administration of justice would be best served in this case by granting Raymond John Bailey a pardon, and quashing his conviction; or at least having the whole case ventilated in the Court of Appeal.
Relevant experience
Between 1965 and 1974 I was a Queensland Police Officer, serving primarily as a detective at the Brisbane and environs Criminal Investigation Branch. From 1974 to 1978 I was a detective with the then Commonwealth (now Federal) Police. Between 1979 and 2019 I was a barrister in practice at the private Bar in Queensland and New South Wales, with occasional forays into South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria.
While in practice I held part-time appointments as the president of the Brisbane and then the Queensland Corrections Board (Parole Boards), and later as president of the renamed Queensland Parole Board. Parole Board work spanned about nineteen years, for three of which I was also the vice-president of the Association of Paroling Authorities International.
When a Queensland detective, I was put to work with Glen Patrick Hallahan for about three weeks until he requested another partner, as we had quite different standards and attitudes. Throughout my Police service and afterwards, Hallahan, another detective named Murphy and Terry Lewis who became the Police Commissioner, were reputed to be involved in serious criminal and corrupt activity. It was not just inappropriate office gossip, but a series of accusations by a number of respected detectives, although hard evidence was lacking. His propensity to fabricate evidence was confirmed by at least three Courts, as detailed by the petitioner. Hallahan had died by the time his close acquaintance Terry Lewis was charged and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
My experience and observations during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was that the fabrication of a confession (“the verbal”) was a weapon regularly wielded by corrupt detectives, who did not hesitate to boast about it to their workmates. The social climate of the time was that some judges, magistrates and juries were aghast at the proposition that a Police Officer would tell a lie, and believed unhesitatingly that the only person not telling the truth was the defendant. That view increased the boldness of corrupt police. During my eight years as an active detective, which involved giving evidence a number of times, my evidence was not ever challenged. Further, proper investigation most often resulted in the offender pleading Guilty.
Material considered
I have read the Petition and supporting documents as well as the Judgment of the Supreme Court (in Banco) which dismissed Bailey’s appeal. The thoroughness and accuracy of Mr Bishop’s material cannot be disputed; and it is not intended to regurgitate it, but to highlight some aspects about which I believe I am qualified to comment.
Association with the Petitioners
I have met only one of the Petitioners, Judge Howell. Until reading the material, I had not heard of Bailey’s case.
Submission as to what would be a just outcome
In my respectful submission, it would be just to either pardon Bailey, or quash his conviction. If those outcomes are thought too extreme at this stage, then the case could be thoroughly and fully ventilated in the Court of Appeal as a first step. It is not suggested that the Supreme Court erred in 1958. However it is now possible to consider the evidence in the light of what is now known about the activities of Glen Patrick Hallahan, without whose evidence the prosecution would have surely failed.
The confession/s
At trial and on appeal, defence counsel relied upon the narrow ground that Bailey was not warned about his right to silence until it was too late, in contravention of the Judges’ Rules. There was no cross-examination or appeal submission alleging that either the confession to Hallahan or the refinement of it by the South Australia detectives was fabricated.
That may have been due to inadvertence or may have been a deliberate tactic, given the community’s general unwillingness to accept that Police Officers perjured themselves. It is noted that defence counsel wrote in his diary that Bailey would be “sunk” if he gave evidence. That view may have been the product of a belief that Bailey was guilty and would not fare well in cross-examination; or it could have been because he knew Bailey would claim that he did not confess, and that proposition was likely to be rejected by the jury.
Whatever the reason, it is submitted that the flaws in the fabricated confession/s raise more than a reasonable doubt about Bailey’s likely guilt.
Flaws and contradictions in confession
The contents of the alleged confession are to be considered in the light of Hallahan’s concession at trial that when he interviewed Bailey, he had only “a summary” of the murders.
Method of killing
The pathologist’s opinion was that all three victims had their skulls fractured before being shot; and in his opinion they were all killed where they were found. But according to the confession, Bailey took all the victims to another place some distance away after killing them.
The confession also had him saying that he shot Thyra Bowman as she walked towards him. The pathologist said she was shot in the back of the neck as she lay face down on the ground. The confession claims Bailey said he hit Wendy Bowman on the head with the rifle butt, causing her to fall down. Then he shot her as she was getting up. The pathologist said
she was shot through the head while lying on the ground with the right side of her face facing downwards.
The weapon
Bailey obtained a Huntsman rifle before leaving South Australia, but did not have it in his possession when searched at Mt Isa, and explained the disposition of it. The victims were in possession of a Sportsman rifle. There are distinct differences in appearance between the two.
The confession claims Bailey said that he saw his rifle, broken and covered in blood, on the front seat (of a car) at the scene. The only rifle at the scene was broken and had blood on it, but it was the Bowman’s Sportsman.
That means, according to the confession, there was sufficient light available for Bailey to see that the gun was broken, and was able to see blood stains, but was not able to discern that it was not his rifle.
It is emphasised that on his own admission, Hallahan was not in possession of the details of the murder scene when he interviewed Bailey.
The confession claimed that Bailey said he threw the murder weapon, his rifle, out the car window after leaving the murder scene and before arriving at Alice Springs. There was substantial publicity about a search that the police said was to be made, in company with Bailey, for the missing weapon. There were even blacktrackers engaged to help. However at trial it was conceded by a South Australia detective, one Moran, that no search for the weapon took place, with or without Bailey.
It is submitted that the only likely reason to call off a planned and announced search would be because other police realised, or suspected, or were told by Hallahan, that the rifle would not be found because he had fabricated that part of the confession.
The father-in-law
While at Mt Isa, Bailey made arrangements for his father-in-law, a Mr Hudson, to travel from his home in Dubbo to Mt Isa to visit him at the police station. That visit, according to Hallahan, started at 7.30pm on Saturday 25 January 1957. Hallahan claimed that in his presence, Bailey confessed to his father-in-law. Bailey later denied having done so.
If Hallahan’s version of events was the truth, then it would have been fundamental police practice to obtain a written statement from Mr Hudson as to what Bailey had said as soon as possible, given the extreme importance of his evidence as a relative who was able to give sworn evidence of admissions of guilt. Astonishingly, it seems Hallahan did not obtain a written statement from Mr Hudson.
The only written record which was created about the alleged conversation was made by Hallahan, and that almost a month after the conversation took place. Hallahan’s record was created on Friday 21st February. The committal proceedings were listed to commence on Monday 24th February.
At the commencement of the trial, the Crown Prosecutor told the jury that Mr Hudson would be an important witness. However he was not called by the Crown, and no reason was advanced by the Crown for the omission to call him. It is submitted that the likely reason to not call such an important witness was that the Crown Prosecutor was either told, or came to believe, that Mr Hudson could not confirm Hallahan’s version of the conversation.
Bailey told the Court that he believed Mr Hudson did not attend because he had the mumps. But there was no medical or other evidence adduced to indicate either that Mr Hudson was sick, or that he could not travel to the Court. And it was the Crown’s responsibility to deal with the situation, not the accused’s. The Crown Prosecutor could have sought an adjournment until Mr Hudson was able to attend. The fact that the Prosecutor did not do so leaves the inference open that a forensic reason emerged for the Crown not wanting him present.
Hallahan’s reliability
Bailey and his wife were travelling in a black de Soto car. There is a plethora of evidence that the South Australia investigators told other Police, including those at Mt Isa, that they were interested in speaking with the occupants of a black de Soto in connection with the murders.
Hallahan gave evidence that he saw a black de Soto with South Australia registration at 5.00pm in Mt Isa, and waited nearby until 6.20pm when the occupant (Bailey) returned to the vehicle. It was then that Hallahan and his partner, a Detective Pfingst, started to question Bailey about his ownership of the vehicle. In Court, Hallahan claimed he did not know at that time that the vehicle was of interest to the murder investigators, but alleged the two detectives were watching the car because “of information received.” If that was the truth, the information must have been about the acquisition of the car by false pretences, with which Bailey was later charged. It is to be noted that Hallahan claimed to have not been told the registration number of the wanted car before his afternoon watch.
In other words, on Hallahan’s version of events, he was ignorant of the South Australia police notices of interest in the vehicle over the murders, despite being a detective in a small town on a main outback route from the Northern Territory to Queensland. But he did receive information about a fraud concerning the same car from the same State, even though it related only to a de Soto car with an unknown registration number.
Second, there is the aspect of Hallahan’s interview with Bailey. When he questioned him about the car, and charged him with false pretences, he had Detective Pfingst with him. That accorded with standard police practice to have a corroborator present who could give evidence of what was said.
However there was a curious system employed by Hallahan when Bailey was interviewed about the murder. The District Inspector at the time was a man named Norwin Bauer. Hallahan questioned Bailey about the murder on 22 January, between 10.30am and 1.30pm. In evidence, Hallahan said: “Bauer was present for most of the interrogation. He went out on quite a few occasions.” Hallahan said he cautioned Bailey about his right to silence at 12.15pm, and that Bauer was present when the caution was administered “and was present thereafter.” He gave evidence that the interview continued for “about twenty-five minutes” after the caution.
Several points arise from that evidence. First, the only reference to Bauer in Hallahan’s statement for Court was that Bauer was present when Bailey was cautioned at 12.15pm, and was present for the remaining twenty-five minutes of the interview. It was only when giving evidence that he first mentioned that Bauer was present intermittently between 1030am and 1215. The obvious question is why an investigating detective would not have mentioned the
whole involvement of the District Inspector in his Court statement, if Bauer was in truth present earlier.
Second, it appears from the material that Bauer was not called to give evidence even though, at least potentially, he could have given evidence corroborating the confession, if it had been made. It beggars belief that the Crown Prosecutor would not either call him, or at least have him at Court in case the genuineness of the confession was challenged. Third, there must be only a small likelihood of the District Inspector being used as a silent witness during a murder interrogation, rather than another detective such as Pfingst who was present during the previous day’s interviews about the car, or a uniform Police Officer.
Fourth, Hallahan’s claim that Bauer was absent from the interrogation “on quite a few occasions” means that even if Bauer had been sometimes present, there was ample opportunity for Hallahan to apply his over-bearing and intimidating tricks without a witness; and also to be able to claim Bailey had confessed when Bauer was absent. Further, the likelihood of the District Inspector offering or agreeing to the corroborator’s role, but then not remaining in the room for three hours must be remote. It has to be highly unlikely that matters of urgent district importance arose several times during a two hour period (10.30am to 12.15pm) on a Tuesday in Mt Isa.
Fifth, this is the only occasion on which I have experienced or been told that a detective noted the specific time a caution was administered. There is no point in doing so in the event of a genuine confession and genuine caution. But if both were fabricated, a note of the time of the alleged caution might bolster the stocks of the detective in the minds of the jury, in that he would be seen as a thorough and meticulous person. The whole of Hallahan’s evidence about Bauer smacks of falsity.
Identification evidence
After Bailey had been charged, his car was taken to a police holding yard. Kulgera is a small town about twenty kilometres north of the South Australia border, on the road to Alice Springs. The Kulgera storekeeper, a Mr Wilkinson, was interviewed and taken to the holding yard to view the vehicle. The prosecution case included an allegation that Bailey bought petrol at Wilkinson’s store.
Mr Wilkinson gave evidence at the committal proceedings about a black car having passed through Kulgera, but he was unable to recall details. However at the trial he was definite about the car and the date on which he saw it. Mr Wilkinson said his memory was improved by seeing Bailey’s car at the police holding yard.
Importantly, when asked about identification of the car’s occupant, Mr Wilkinson looked directly at Bailey, and said: “I have never seen this man before this Court case.”
There does not appear to have been any connection between Mr Wilkinson and Bailey. He was just a storekeeper from a small town giving honest evidence. His certainty of never having previously seen Bailey should have raised a doubt in the jury’s collective mind. But it did not, highlighting the importance of the confessional evidence.
Footprints
There was evidence that some shoeprints of varying sizes were found at the murder scene. They were estimated to be between sizes seven and ten. Bailey’s shoe size was five and a half or six, depending on the brand of shoe. Once again, the discrepancy should have caused the jury some concern. But again the belief in the truth of the fabricated confessions carried the day.
Defence counsel
Defence counsel in criminal cases must sometimes make important but difficult tactical decisions. Often there are simpler alternatives, but counsel usually try to make the decision which will be most likely to help the client. In so doing, tactical mistakes can be made. In the present case, it could be that counsel did not prepare as thoroughly as would be expected, as the petition suggests. Alternatively it could be that the wrong tactics were chosen.
It was not put to Hallahan that the confession was a fabrication, and he was not subjected to rigorous cross-examination about its flaws and contradictions. And it was not put to the South Australia detectives that they refined the confession to make it better align with the evidence. Consequently the jury did not have an opportunity to even consider the possible falsity of the confessional evidence.
As the Crown did not call the father-in-law Mr Hudson as opened, defence counsel could have done so, or sought an adjournment if the witness was ill. Not doing so deprived Bailey of an important opportunity. According to Bailey’s statement, which presumably was in line with his instructions, Hudson’s evidence would have been that Bailey did not confess to him.
Hallahan should have been cross-examined about the falsity of that part of his statement and then evidence led from Hudson about there not having been a confession in his presence. In relation to the alleged confession to Hallahan, to not cross-examine about it being fabricated but to rely only on the narrow ground of a caution not having been made earlier than it was, was a serious error.
Conclusion
I accept and unreservedly endorse the worth of all the contents of the petition. This statement is intended to reinforce some of the points already made, from the perspective of personal experience.
My ultimate submission is that the system of administration of justice would be best served in this case by granting Raymond John Bailey a pardon, and quashing his conviction; or at least having the whole case ventilated in the Court of Appeal.