Key Points
- Derek Bromley was found guilty of murder in 1984 and has been in prison since.
- His lawyers have questioned the evidence of an eyewitness in the case.
- His case for an appeal is being heard in the High Court in Canberra this week.
An eyewitness would have had to confuse a “dapper man” in a white suit and black shirt for someone wearing a pale checked shirt and brown corduroy pants in order for Derek Bromley to be guilty of murder, the High Court has heard.
In 1984, Nurungga Ngarrindjeri man Bromley and co-accused John Karpany were found guilty of bludgeoning Adelaide man Stephen Docoza to death on the banks of the River Torrens after the victim refused their sexual advances.
Bromley’s lawyers have asserted that authorities disregarded “strong and reliable” evidence that directly contradicted his involvement in the crime.
Bromley has spent nearly 40 years behind bars for the crime he says he did not commit. His case in the High Court this week is a final attempt to clear his name.
Bromley’s lawyers argue the evidence of eyewitness Gary Carter, whose version of events was relied upon by SA Chief Pathologist Dr Colin Manock, “was unreliable before, during, and after the offence.”
Stephen Keim SC told the High Court on Wednesday that Mr Carter was suffering “acute symptoms of schizoaffective disorder” in the weeks leading up to the offence, and had reported “seeing the Devil.”
He asserted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had ignored new psychiatric evidence that Mr Carter’s evidence “could not be relied upon unless corroborated in every respect” and that his illness made him susceptible to suggestibility.
“If you have high quality expert medical opinion, a court cannot disregard that. But that’s exactly what the Court of Criminal Appeal has done,” Mr Keim said.
Mr Keim also argued that evidence from a taxi driver known as Mr George, which cast doubt on Bromley’s involvement in the crime, had been disregarded by previous courts.
He told the court Mr George had told police he picked up four passengers on Adelaide’s popular night-strip Hindley Street around 3:30am, and identified them as the victim, Carter, Karpany and a “dapper man”.
“Mr George said the dapper man was wearing a white suit with a black shirt, and white tie, and a modern hat with a brim,” he said.
The court heard Bromley’s sister-in-law, Margaret Bromley gave evidence to police that Bromley was wearing a pale checked Western-style shirt, with brown corduroy pants, sneakers, and a blue jacket when she saw him earlier that night.
The court also heard a police officer, Constable Burden, who saw Bromley around 4:30am on the morning of the murder, said he was “dressed in a pale shirt and trousers.”
The court heard Mr George eventually did identify Bromley as the fourth man in his taxi, after police showed him a series of mugshots – 25 days after the crime, and after initially being unable to identify the man.
“Photo evidence is classically dangerous to rely on, even more so when identifying a person of a different ethnic background to oneself,” Mr Keim said.
Evidence of chief forensic pathologist disputed
Another key pillar of Bromley’s appeal, is the reliability of the autopsy evidence of the state's chief forensic pathologist Dr Manock, who was later discredited.
Mr Keim told the court Dr Manock’s evidence “contradicted the eyewitness account Carter gave as much as it confirmed it.”
“Carter said he saw the victim bludgeoned with a barbell, but Dr Manock expressed doubt as to whether the body had been hit with heavy weight.
“Carter said the deceased was stripped naked, but the victim was found with all his clothes on, except from the waist down.”
However, police divers did recover a barbell in the River Torrens where the victim’s body was found.
“Something of the nature that Carter described has been corroborated by the evidence, but not that Bromley was there,” Mr Keim said.
Bromley has been eligible for parole since 2006 but it has been denied because he has continued to maintain his innocence.
The matter is being heard over two days by five High Court justices.
The court will hear from Crown lawyers on Thursday.
