Anthea Bradshaw-Hall: Husband named as suspect in court bid for full police file
THE suspect in the murder of Adelaide woman Anthea Bradshaw-Hall, who was killed in Brunei in 1994, has been named in an Adelaide court.
- Suspect launches court action to get access to police files
- New law allows suspect to be prosecuted in Adelaide
- Cold Case: Family’s fight for justice over murder of Anthea Bradshaw
THE husband of Adelaide woman Anthea Bradshaw-Hall, who was murdered in Brunei in 1994, has been named in an Adelaide court as a suspect in her death.
The revelation was made in the District Court as part of an application made by lawyers acting for Jeffrey Hall to obtain access to the entire SA police and Brunei police investigation files into her death.
Mr Hall’s lawyer Andrew Culshaw told Judge Barry Beazley that Mr Hall was “a suspect in this matter’’ and that there was “no reason the release of these documents is going to prejudice anything.’’
Mr Hall has launched District Court action to obtain the entire Major Crime Investigation Branch file into Anthea’s murder after a ruling by the Police Ombudsman denied him access to 19 documents in full and 28 in part under an FOI application he made.
Anthea Bradshaw-Hall, 26, was murdered while visiting Brunei on July 21, 1994. The former teacher at Fraser Park Primary School, Murray Bridge, was about to move to the sovereign state on the island of Borneo with her husband who had secured a job there.
Ms Bradshaw-Hall was found dead on the floor of their apartment. She had been strangled and then stabbed four times.
In 2013 the Sunday Mail revealed SAPOL’s Major Crime Investigation Branch launched an investigation into Ms Bradshaw-Hall’s death in 2004 after being approached by her family.
Former Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras QC revealed that he believed there was enough evidence to charge the suspect and prosecute him in Australia, but that this could only be done if the Criminal Code Act was amended to give it retrospective power.
In a historic move in federal Parliament last month, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill was unanimously passed providing this retrospectivity.
The legislation was proclaimed last week, clearing the way for police to reopen the long-running investigation file.
Senior police have revealed they will shortly meet with both prosecution and commonwealth authorities to determine the future of the investigation
Mr Hall lodged his District Court action in July after the ruling by the Police Ombudsman to withhold information concerning the SAPOL investigation file.
At the start of today’s hearing Mr Halls’ lawyer Andrew Culshaw said he wanted to cross examine Major Crime investigator Detective Sergeant John Schneemilch over various aspects of the case.
However, Judge Barry Beazley said “in light of what has happened it puts everything in a different light”.
“SAPOL will have to determine if there is a prosecution against someone in SA,’’ he said.
“There will be a brand-new investigation. There has to be. It may be starting all over again.
“Why should they be prejudiced in the way they investigate the matter?’’
Mr Culshaw said it may be a federal matter and it was “a unique case.’’ He said his client had done nothing to prejudice the police investigation and had been interviewed twice over the past 20 years, in Brunei in 1994 and again by Major Crime detectives in Adelaide in 2011.
“At no time has he sought legal advice,’’ he said.
“There is no suggestion he has spoken to any witnesses to prejudice the investigation.’’
Mr Culshaw said Mr Hall “is a suspect in this matter’’ and that there was “no reason the release of these documents is going to prejudice anything”.
He said the “case is weak and evidence is consistent with his client’s evidence”.
Judge Beazley said it would “not be helpful’’ to examine Det. Sgt Schneemilch under circumstances with current law changes and an expected fresh investigation.
Mr Culshaw said his client had “a prima facie right to documents that make everyone so sure he committed this heinous crime”.
“What is in the documents to make all of these people go to the lengths to prosecute him?’’ he asked.
He said Mr Hall had “seven alibi witnesses’’ that placed him at work at the time of the murder and witnesses had reported a “stranger seen hanging around’’ her apartment at the time of Anthea’s murder, there was no trace of his client’s DNA at the scene and blood stains at the scene were consistent with the statement he had given Brunei police.
He said it was “always easy to assume the husband did it’’ but this hypothesis was not supported “by any evidence whatsoever.’’
“That is my client’s interest in knowing the case,’’ Mr Culshaw said.
He said his client’s life in Japan was “in jeopardy’’ with no apparent evidence to support it.
“It appears inevitable Mr Hall will be prosecuted,’’ he said.
He said it will “be highly surprising’’ if the federal Attorney-General, having passed the Bill, did not give his assent to Mr Hall’s extradition if asked to do so.
“There is every reason to think if things go ahead this man’s life will be uprooted,’’ he said.
“There will be substantial time in custody involved and considerable legal costs involved.’’
He said with information he was seeking his client would be “fully armed’’ to fight what “looks inevitable’’ and that having access to all information would “assist him to have this matter fully considered”.
Mr Culshaw said former DPP Stephen Pallaras, QC, had been advised by Brunei authorities in a letter in 2010 there was no prospect of a conviction in the case there. A second letter also offered the same advice.
He said the investigation was “a frolic’’ by SAPOL and the evidence was consistent with Mr Hall’s innocence.
“There is no real prospect of conviction,’’ he said.
He said Mr Hall had given his version of events twice, 17 years apart, and it had not varied.
“There is nothing to suggest the investigation would be prejudiced,’’ he said.
Prosecutor Nerissa Schwartz said if there were any future prosecution it was likely to be conducted by federal authorities under the new Act.
She said Mr Hall had already been provided with the same documents as obtained by the Bradshaw family in their FOI court action in 2012.
She said “public interest’’ was more relevant than an individual’s interest when considering the release of further documents.
She said “potential defendants’ could use documents to frustrate police investigations and that if there was a prosecution “there would be the usual discovery process available to ensure fairness”.
“The appellant has been provided with a significant amount of material,’’ she said.
She said SAPOL had already provided documents “that might not have been provided if the case had proceeded otherwise’’ because of the nature of the case.
“There is a very strong public interest in the respondent being able to protect the investigation until a decision on prosecution has been made,’’ she said.
Judge Beazley said “at the very least there will be a fresh investigation’’ and reserved his decision to a later date.