Australia’s longest-serving Indigenous prisoner Derek Bromley will stay in jail, presumably for months, awaiting the end result of a Excessive Court docket resolution on his closing bid for freedom.
The Nurungga Ngarrindjeri man has spent almost 40 years in a South Australian jail, serving a life sentence for the homicide of Stephen Docoza, whose physique was present in Adelaide’s River Torrens in 1984.
Bromley has been eligible for parole since 2006 however it has been denied as a result of he has continued to take care of his innocence.
The matter was heard by 5 Excessive Court docket justices on Thursday, the second of two days on the Excessive Court docket in Canberra.
The complete bench heard the Crown’s key witness within the case, Gary Carter, was admitted to a psychiatric ward, Hillcrest Hospital, the day after the incident.
“I used to be unwell, sure, I had been off my treatment,” Mr Carter had mentioned on the trial.
“I noticed the satan… there have been occasions once I talked about enjoying for the Port Adelaide Soccer Membership”
Bromley’s lawyer Stephen Keim SC has contested that the South Australian Court docket of Legal Enchantment ignored new psychiatric proof that Mr Carter’s proof “couldn’t be relied upon until corroborated in each respect”, and that his sickness made him prone to suggestibility.
He had informed the courtroom Mr Carter was struggling “acute signs of schizoaffective dysfunction” within the weeks prior.
On Thursday the courtroom heard the knowledgeable proof by a witness — known as Dr Brereton — discovered it “so inherently unreliable” that nearly his whole account must be corroborated.
“Even in these circumstances I might have grave considerations about relying in any vital means on facets of his proof that have been uncorroborated,” Dr Brereton had mentioned in his report.
Attorneys performing for the South Australian workplace of the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted it wasn’t essential for ‘all’ Mr Carter’s proof to be corroborated.
“I don’t go as far as to say you may take the entire of the account,” director of public prosecutions for South Australia Martin Hinton QC, informed the courtroom.
“However you might have sufficient to be happy that there was a violent assault.”
Seven ‘substantive propositions’
In 1984, Bromley and co-accused John Karpany have been discovered responsible of bludgeoning Adelaide man Stephen Docoza to demise on the banks of the River Torrens utilizing a dumbbell after the sufferer refused their sexual advances.
“The dumbbell is there, there are accidents to the physique, the underside half, the pants are lacking – he mentioned they requested for intercourse,” Mr Hinton mentioned.
The prosecution argued there have been seven “substantive propositions” as to why the prosecution case stays that Mr Bromley killed Mr Docoza.
“The physique is within the river, the desert boots [with shoelaces still tied] are the place he was within the location,” Mr Hinton mentioned. “That’s sufficient.”
Prosecutors additionally disputed recent proof from a taxi driver referred to as Mr George which forged doubt on Bromley’s involvement.
Mr George had recognized the sufferer, Mr Carter, Karpany, and a “dapper man” sporting a white swimsuit, who Mr Keim argued couldn’t be his consumer.
However Mr Hinton mentioned the taxi driver had overheard one of many males say he’d simply been launched from jail, which matched Bromley’s state of affairs.
Prosecutors relied on proof by South Australia’s former chief pathologist Colin Manock, whose proof Bromley’s attorneys mentioned, “contradicted the eyewitness account Carter gave as a lot because it confirmed it”.
Of their submissions, Bromley’s attorneys informed the Excessive Court docket the post-mortem proof was challenged.
Mr Manock was later discovered to not have possessed the {qualifications} to both certify reason behind demise or act as an knowledgeable witness. However this pillar of the Bromley case won’t be thought of by the Excessive Court docket as a result of it was not mentioned within the Court docket of Legal Enchantment
South Australia’s DPP in its submissions mentioned the Excessive Court docket “should settle for the reason for demise” given by Mr Manock.
“The restricted referral has the impact of leaving the findings and conclusions of the Full Court docket in relation to the recent pathological proof, and therefore the reason for demise, undisturbed,” the submissions mentioned.
The courtroom has deferred its resolution.