An Adelaide man found guilty of murder almost 45 years ago and originally sentenced to death has lost a High Court bid to overturn his conviction.
Frits Van Beelen served 17 years in jail for the murder of 15-year-old Deborah Leach, who was found drowned and buried in seaweed on Taperoo Beach in July 1971.
He was released from prison in 1990 and has continued to maintain his innocence.
But on Wednesday the High Court dismissed the 69-year-old's latest appeal, ruling against his argument that there had been a significant miscarriage of justice.
In submissions to the court, Van Beelen claimed that scientific evidence at his trial, which related to the time of death, was so flawed and had since been so discredited that it should never have been presented.
But in its judgment, the court ruled that even if the evidence, from forensic pathologist Colin Manock, had been excluded, it did not rule out the former carpenter as the girl's killer.
The court pointed to other material presented at his trial including his admissions that he was on the beach on the day in question and the fact that fibres found on the girl's body matched those of a jumper he had been wearing.
"The inference of guilt depended upon all of the circumstances," the High Court said in its reasons.
"But critical to it was the conclusion that it was not reasonably possible that another man, wearing a knitted garment made of red and black woollen fibres in approximately the same proportion as the red and black woollen fibres of the appellant's jumper, was present on Taperoo Beach that afternoon, and that this other man killed Deborah."
Van Beelen's latest bid to overturn his conviction came after the full bench of the SA Supreme Court last year dismissed his challenge which was based on legislation passed in SA in 2013 that allows a fresh appeal if new and compelling evidence has emerged.
The legislation was successfully used in 2014 to overturn the conviction of Henry Keogh, who was jailed for the murder of his fiancee Anna-Jane Cheney after also being convicted largely on flawed scientific evidence from Dr Manock.
In its judgment, the High Court found that while the new evidence was compelling it was not sufficient to overturn the original conviction.
After the High Court reserved its decision in June, Van Beelen filed an application to introduce further fresh evidence but the court ruled on Wednesday that it did not have the power to consider the material.
It said it remained open for Van Beelen to take that evidence to the SA court in a bid for another appeal.
Share
