After nearly 40 years behind bars Derek John Bromley has lost his final bid to overturn conviction

A convicted murderer’s final bid for freedom has been rejected by Australia’s highest court, meaning he will stay behind bars.

Murderer Derek John Bromley has failed in his final bid to overturn his 1984 conviction - meaning he will remain behind bars despite his continuing protests of innocence.

In a 3-2 majority decision on Wednesday, the High Court dismissed Bromley’s challenge to his conviction for the murder of Stephen Docoza.

The court ruled Bromley’s challenges to the mental capacity, and therefore reliability, of a prosecution witness was neither “compelling nor probative” enough to warrant a new trial.

It further ruled the SA Court of Appeal was correct to have refused Bromley’s previous bid for a new trial, saying it would not have been in the interests of justice to do so.

Derek John Bromley.

Bromley’s brother, Russell Milera, following the unsuccessful Court of Appeal case in 2017. Picture: Mark Brake

Bromley, 67, and John Karpany were convicted of the April 1984 murder of Stephen Docoza and sentenced to life with a 20-year non-parole period.

The Supreme Court found the duo had bludgeoned Mr Docoza to death with a dumbbell after he had refused their sexual advances.

He has steadfastly maintained his innocence ever since, making him ineligible to apply for parole when his head sentence expired in 2006.

In 2017, Bromley made an unsuccessful Court of Appeal bid to overturn his conviction, arguing Mr Docoza had already died from natural causes before falling into the river.

His challenge was based on criticisms of former SA Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Colin Manock that saw another alleged murderer, Henry Keogh, granted a retrial.

Bromley, pictured in prison in 1994, has maintained his innocence since his arrest.

Bromley subsequently launched a High Court challenge that, instead of criticising Dr Manock, made assertions about the reliability of a key prosecution witness.

He argued purported eyewitness Gary Carter “could not be relied upon” due to his history of schizoaffective mental health issues that “made him susceptible to suggestibility”.

Bromley also preferred a new, previously unknown witness – a taxi driver – whose account of the incident differed from Mr Carter’s version of events.

Director of Public Prosecutions Martin Hinton KC urged the court to reject the appeal, saying the evidence established a violent, fatal assault was perpetrated by Bromley and Karpany.

Murder suspect Henry Keogh, who spent decades behind bars, supported Bromley’s Court of Appeal bid. Picture: Bianca De Marchi

In their judgment on Wednesday, the court’s majority said Bromley should be refused special leave to appeal his conviction.

“The (SA Court of Appeal) was right to conclude that the fresh psychiatric and psychological evidence is not compelling and not highly probative in the context of the reliability of (the eyewitnesses’) evidence,” it ruled.

“We see no error in its reasoning and agree with its conclusion... it was right to deny permission to appeal as there was no fresh and compelling evidence that should, in the interests of justice, be considered on appeal.”

The dissenting judges said special leave should have been granted and that, given the passage of time and the loss of original evidence exhibits, Bromley should have been acquitted and no retrial ordered.

As they were in the minority, Bromley’s conviction stands.

Dr Robert Moles, Flinders University adjunct associate professor and an expert when it comes to “miscarriages of justice,” said he believed there was a case for Bromley to have been acquitted, as there is “every likelihood that Carter’s evidence would have been wholly excluded if the trial had taken place today.”

“There are strong reasons to suggest that Bromley’s trial should be assessed according to the current standards of admissibility,” Dr Moles said.

“It is difficult to understand why the High Court did not allow evidence or argument against Dr Manock’s evidence to be part of the appeal.

“I have argued at some length in various submissions to Attorneys-General in many states that the new right of appeal provisions are unduly onerous and still amount to infringements of our international human rights obligations.”