Vindication !

It is said that the wheels of justice grind slowly.  Many Australians have followed the convolutions of what became known as the " Roseanne Catt " case as it progressed through the court system.

In 1989 Roseanne Catt was arrested and charged with the attempted murder of her husband, Barry, by soliciting others to carry out the deed and by administering Lithium poisoning.  In 1991 she was found guilty after a lurid trial and sentenced to a twelve year stint in prison.  She protested her innocence.

Roseanne Catt served a full ten years behind bars and in 2004 her defence team uncovered evidence that suggested that a gun found in her possession had been planted by the investigating detective, who happened to be a close friend of her husband.   As a result she was released and the conviction quashed. The DPP elected not to subject her to a retrial.

What followed was a travesty of justice.  Seeking compensation for those ten years behind bars she encountered incredible resistance from the law.   It was first suggested that she served that time because she refused to publicly accept guilt, which is a requirement for parole.  Had she done what most other offenders do - lie and accept guilt - she would have been granted parole many years earlier.  It was an attempt to shift the blame for years behind bars back onto her own shoulders.

Then the Supreme court issued it's infamous 2011 finding that this woman would be required to " prove her innocence " for compensation to be considered.  Juggling the fine points of the law, it was obvious that the legal system was doing everything possible to hide it's complicity in a badly bungled conviction.

This week the Supreme court overturned it's previous finding and awarded the former Roseanne Catt - now Roseanne Beckitt - $ 2.3 million in compensation, and ordered that it pay her legal expenses, which will be somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million.

If nothing else, this famous case is shining the spotlight on a peculiarity of the legal system that actually demands that a prisoner commit a crime if they hope for an earlier release from prison.
It seems that parole is always consistent on the prisoner admitting guilt and remorse for the crime for which they have been sentenced - and put that in writing in the form of a statuary declaration.

That ignores the fact that making a false claim by way of a statuary declaration is in itself a crime punishable by a term in prison.  This woman has always claimed her innocence and yet she had further punishment  inflicted on her because she refused to criminally sign an untrue sworn declaration of guilt.

It is hardly a vindication for the courts to claim that this is just standard procedure and all prisoners cheerfully sign on the dotted line to gain early release.  Given the malice shown by the courts, it is possible that they might have actually proceeded against her had she signed that document and had it been taken into consideration in this final judgement.

Many will wonder if others remain in prison because their claim of innocence forbids them to make this false declaration of guilt.