Legal blow to Bowraville murder families

A committee tasked with reviewing proposed changes to double jeopardy laws recommended the bill “should not proceed”.

Bowraville community members outside of the Supreme Court in Sydney. Picture: AAP

The families of the Bowraville murder victims were dealt another blow yesterday when a committee tasked with reviewing proposed changes to double jeopardy laws recommended the bill “should not proceed”.

The bill, introduced by Greens MP David Shoebridge in NSW parliament in May, was crafted to address the legislative barriers to a retrial of an individual for the three children murdered in Bowraville in 1990-91 — Colleen Walker-Craig, Evelyn Greenup and Clinton Speedy-Duroux.

The bill sought to expand the definition of “fresh” evidence, which would allow a second re-trial application in ­exceptional circumstances. “This is the third time I’ve presented … a law to reform the laws of double jeopardy,” Mr Shoebridge said in May.

“The chance for justice is now, and it will not come back.”

Yesterday, the upper house committee considering the bill recommended it “should not proceed”. Chair Niall Blair said it had examined “the technical and legal implications of the bill’s proposed amendments to the current law”.

“Having explored these complex legal issues in detail, and noting that almost all stakeholders identified significant problems with the bill’s wording, the committee considers the bill as drafted should not proceed,” he said.

The committee saw “merit” in a model proposed by the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research, run by the University of Technology Sydney, and recommended the NSW government consider that option.

The institute proposed replacing the word “adduced” by ­“admitted” in legislation, meaning a retrial should be considered if there was evidence never brought before a jury.