Kathleen Folbigg: Baby killer’s new legal bid to prove innocence
Almost two decades after being convicted of killing her four children, Kathleen Folbigg is back in court attempting to quash the findings of an inquiry.
Central Sydney
Don't miss out on the headlines from Central Sydney. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Baby killer Kathleen Folbigg is continuing to protest her innocence almost two decades after she was convicted over the deaths of her four babies with her lawyers attempting to invalidate the findings of an inquiry held last year.
Folbigg, who lived around Newcastle and The Hunter, was found guilty in 2003 of the murders of her infants Patrick, Sarah and Laura and the manslaughter of little Caleb over a 10 year period beginning in 1989.
Justice Reginald Blanch, who headed the 2019 inquiry, together with the office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney-General Mark Speakman will respond to the summons from Folbigg’s legal team.
In October Folbigg’s lawyers began legal action claiming Justice Blanch “failed to apply the correct legal test of reasonable doubt to the evidence before the inquiry”.
At a directions hearing in the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Desmond Fagan sought clarity about what exactly was being litigated by Ms Folbigg.
He noted there was concern about certain medical records of the children being presented in a redacted form and a secretly recorded phone call between Folbigg and her ex husband Craig which was not entered as evidence.
However he was critical about how the material had been put to him by Folbigg’s team and the “present state of preparation” of the case.
“I looked up the references to the paragraphs cited about the medical evidence of the child Patrick and an apparent life threatening event in October 1990,” Justice Fagan said.
“There are mentions of the possibility of viral encephalitis, epilepsy and other causes asphyxiation or partial asphyxiation.
“They don’t seem to relate to what they are cited for.”
Defence Brendan Lim agreed some of the medical reports were only submitted in part during the inquiry.
“It’s certainly the case certain reports tendered to the inquiry were in redacted forms,” Mr Lim said.
“Some of it was based on relevance but I’m not in a position to address on that today. They were tendered often without objection.”
Documents filed in the Supreme Court by Mr Speakman on March 2 as a response to the summons categorically deny there is any case to answer.
“The Attorney-General denies that (Justice Blanch) exceeded his jurisdiction,” the papers read.
The response also points out Justice Blanch “was not legally obliged to ‘address’ every submission made” in the inquiry and he did not err by “failing to ‘admit’ relevant evidence”.
“In the premises, the Attorney-General denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought,” the documents read.
In a lengthy “List of Issues for Determination by the Court” Folbigg’s lawyers also questioned whether Craig Folbigg should have been compelled to provide a DNA sample.
Justice Fagan was eventually persuaded to look for a date towards the latter half of the year for the case to be heard, potentially across two sitting dates.
“I’m mindful my client is in custody, she’s incarcerated, so the matter should be expedited,” Folbigg’s lawyer said.
Folbigg’s team will file and serve submissions by May 1, the defence will file by May 29 and the plaintiff will reply by June 19.