() – An Australian mother who spent two decades in prison after being wrongly convicted of killing her four children had her convictions formally quashed on Thursday as her lawyers called for legal reform and “substantial” compensation.
Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned and released from prison in June on the recommendation of retired Judge Tom Bathurst, who re-examined all the evidence presented at her 2003 trial and found “reasonable doubt” about her guilt.
But clearing her name required a formal ruling from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, and on Thursday a panel of judges agreed she should be acquitted of all charges, ending one of the country’s most high-profile miscarriages of justice.
Outside court, an emotional Folbigg thanked her supporters who worked tirelessly to convince the NSW government and legal system that new scientific evidence warranted closer scrutiny of her convictions.
“The time it has taken to see today’s outcome has cost a lot to a lot of people,” said Folbigg, standing alongside his lawyers and closest friends. “I was hoping and praying that one day I would be able to stand here with my name cleared.”
Folbigg was jailed in 2003 on three counts of murder and one of manslaughter following the deaths of her four babies over a decade from 1989.
No physical evidence was presented that she had killed them, but the jury was convinced that the chances of the four dying of natural causes were so unlikely that it must have been murder. Certain passages in her diary were also interpreted as confessions of guilt.
As recently as 2019, an inquiry into his convictions found there was “no reasonable doubt” he had committed the crimes. But in 2022 another inquiry was launched after scientists discovered a previously unknown mutant gene in his two daughters that could have been fatal.
The evidence provided a genetic explanation for the children’s deaths, raising “reasonable doubt” about their convictions and enough to convince a judge to recommend clemency.
Folbigg’s first baby, Caleb, died in 1989, followed by Patrick in 1991, Sarah in 1993 and finally Laura in 1999.
The first three deaths were initially attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a term used when babies under 1 year old die for no apparent reason.
At 18 months old, Laura was the oldest of the Folbigg children, and police began investigating after a forensic pathologist marked the cause of her death as “undetermined.” She was charged and convicted as newspaper headlines declared her “Australia’s worst serial killer.”
For decades, Folbigg languished in prison despite acquittals in similar cases in the UK that had also been based on “Meadow Law,” the false maxim pushed by the discredited British paediatrician Roy Meadow that one sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy, two is suspicious, and three is murder.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Andrew Bell said the Court of Appeal judges agreed with Bathurst’s findings that “a substantial and extensive body of new scientific evidence” outweighed the evidence heard at his trial. They also found that his diaries, viewed in full context and supported by new expert psychological and psychiatric evidence, were “not reliable admissions of guilt.”
Outside court, Folbigg’s lawyer Rhanee Rego said Folbigg’s legal team would now seek compensation, which she predicted would be “substantial.”
“I’m not prepared to put a figure on it, but it will be larger than any substantial payment that has been made before,” she said.
More importantly, they are lobbying all Australian states to create an independent review body, such as a Criminal Cases Review Commission, to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
“The suffering of an innocent woman can and should be acknowledged and become a major impetus to improving our legal system,” Rego said.
Anna-Maria Rabia, chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science, echoed calls for an independent review commission in all jurisdictions across the country.
“Here in New South Wales we have just seen Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions quashed after 20 years in jail. If a case of this magnitude doesn’t trigger legal reform, I’m not sure what will,” she said.
“It is time for Australia to review its legal system to ensure it can be more scientifically informed, particularly given the pace of change in scientific discovery and technological advancement.”
Add Comment