A shadow of reasonable doubt

Richard Guilliatt’s Shadow of Doubt podcast is disturbing and unsettling, plunging into some of the darkest depths of mental illness and dilemmas within the legal system. It also raises questions about the nature of evil and sadistic familial abuse – if it happened as alleged. The podcast, as well as recounting a story more gripping than a dark mystery novel, is critically important public interest journalism.

As Guilliatt writes on Saturday, after the release of the final podcast episode, an elderly grandmother, “Margaret”, a key prosecution witness, doubts justice has been done in relation to the claims of her granddaughter, “Emily Johnson”, who says she was tortured and raped in a shed next to her family home and imprisoned there for up to three nights in a row for years. Those claims, accepted by a jury, have resulted in lengthy jail terms for the young woman’s parents. Her father, “Martin Johnson”, is serving 48 years in jail, the longest sentence given for child abuse in Australia. He is set to die there. Her mother, “Susan Johnson”, is serving 16 years. Both speak in the podcast, in which names were changed to protect the identity of the family, who cannot be identified for legal reasons.

The reliability and pitfalls of regressive memory “evidence”, which has caused major problems in the past, are front and centre in Shadow of Doubt. The jury that convicted Martin and Susan did not get to hear that their daughter’s memories had been recovered in a thousand hours of questionable therapy. For centuries victims have been disbelieved. Now we are hearing their voices, but in our rush to right a wrong, we risk endangering the principle that keeps us all safe: everyone gets a fair trial.

The jury did not know accuser Emily was suffering dissociation, formerly known as multiple personality disorder. They were not presented crucial evidence about the provenance of buried tools or Emily’s diary. The parents at the centre of the case vehemently proclaim their innocence. Their son and one of their daughters say it would have been impossible for the abuse their sister describes to have happened without them noticing. It is manifestly implausible that the girl was ritually tortured for days on end in a chicken-wire shed just metres from the family home, visible from her siblings’ bedroom windows, without them noticing – and it’s inexplicable that nobody ever saw the bruises and lacerations such grotesque torment must have inflicted.

Juries usually get it right – but it’s plain that defendants such as Martin Johnson, with his record of disturbing behaviour, are easy for juries to dislike. As the podcast relates, Martin, a former teacher and sports coach, left two schools under a cloud of allegations of inappropriate contact with teenage female students. At the trial, Margaret testified that she had once seen her son-in-law being massaged by his three daughters in an aroused state.

Miscarriages of justice happen to people who don’t present well as witnesses; who don’t say or do what juries expect; who have shadows in their past. That makes it even more important for police and prosecutors to be diligent and cautious in investigating and charging. If doubt exists, it must be fairly considered before trial, and honestly presented to the court. We do not convict people for being suspicious, or unlikeable, or morally bankrupt. The test is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That doubt is the cornerstone of our justice system, and without it no accused person can get a fair trial. We must lean towards the doubt, not try to brush it aside, especially when we are seeking to address an imbalance.

In the interests of justice, the case warrants revisiting via a judicial review. As Margaret says: “It really comes to a point, what actually did happen? There’s so many question marks in it.” She initially accepted the guilty verdict. But she became concerned when Emily told her she had enjoyed the power she had been able to wield over her parents and felt guilty about it.

The case also raises serious issues about psychiatric care. A senior psychiatrist who worked at the hospital told the podcast that detaining a highly trained sportswoman, which Emily was, in a heavily sedated state for so long had likely worsened her mental health problems. Shown a chart of the drug doses she was administered, he said: “Look, this is just an abomination.’’ A former nurse worried that Emily was receiving treatment in a sexual assault centre with a poor reputation for its counselling methods. Messy and difficult as it is, the case raises too many reasonable doubts to be left hanging.