Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to raise in the Senate the tragic event of 29 January 2009 when high on the West Gate Bridge in peak-hour traffic a man named Arthur Freeman threw his four-year-old daughter off the bridge to her death. It was morning and Darcy was on her way to attend her first day of school. Arthur Freeman did so in a revenge act towards his former wife. This particular high-profile public act of horror weighs heavily on the minds and hearts of Victorians. It was an act that has wrought unspeakable misery. Its mere contemplation creates an unshakeable dread for so many. I will refer to just some of the victim impact statements made in the court. Kristine Gough, an ambulance officer, was among the first on the scene. She said:

I asked Darcy to fight to live, but she could not. I begged her verbally not to give up, but her body had.

Also called to the job was police officer Colleen Spiteri, who said:

I remember feeling so overwhelmed by what I was seeing and I turned back towards the footbridge and almost fell to the ground.

Spiteri went on to talk about what she said to the mother at the hospital:

I spoke to the girl's mother. I told her that her daughter was strong and fought hard. I told her that in the short time I was with her I loved her so that she had love around her.

I will not refer to the heart-wrenching family statements, though they were widely reported.

Arthur Freeman was convicted by the jury of consciously, voluntarily and intentionally tossing Darcy to her death. However, it took the jury five days to deliberate. The case came exceedingly close to a mistrial, if not for the supreme effort and guidance of the ruling judge. He was strong in his advice that the jury continue to deliberate even when the jury had indicated more than once that it had exhausted all avenues by which to reach a verdict. A reading of the court transcripts shows the judge's thorough attention to every detail in the case. He admirably upheld his oath of office and moreover would not let the truth be buried under any legal or court jargon, any strict procedure or court atmospherics, even human exhaustion and emotion, let alone misleading and false witness.

It is this latter point I wish to take up in the Senate and I do so fully aware I speak under privilege of the parliament. First, as all would be aware of and in full agreement with, it is the foundation stone of our justice system that every person is entitled to a defence. However, they are not entitled to a concocted defence. This, I believe, is what occurred in the Freeman case. I refer to crucial evidence given by Professor Graham Burrows in favour of Arthur Freeman. Professor Burrows was the only one of six psychiatrists who spoke for the accused. Professor Burrows's time in the witness box on 17 March was dutifully and meticulously used to explain away Freeman's deliberate actions. Professor Burrows absurdly claimed Freeman as being 'in a state of serene disassociation' or a 'hypnotic state like sleepwalking'. Burrows actually said: 'Freeman didn't know what he was doing.'

Every other expert who had the same access to Freeman as Burrows disagreed in the extreme with his analysis. For them, Arthur Freeman knew exactly what he was doing. I add that any common and reasonable person's analysis of the facts of that fateful day would lead them to the same conclusion: that Arthur Freeman knew exactly what he was doing. There was crystal clear fact after crystal clear fact. So it is not good enough for Professor Burrows to hide behind what he would say is his superior knowledge or assessment to that of his peers or say that while his opinion differs his is still an opinion. An opinion is not just an opinion in a murder case. It is held up to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yet Professor Burrows's time in the witness box came chillingly close to convincing some in the jury and thus dangerously close to getting Freeman off his subsequent murder conviction.

Perhaps it was because certain members of the jury were in bewilderment of such cruelty coming from a father. Enter Professor Burrows who used his eminent position with an intellectual concoction to give an excuse for such a merciless act. Darcy deserved better than that. Professor Burrows is a gun for hire. He has been described as a psychiatrist of last resort and one who will sing whatever song the defence wants. He has been a star witness for the defence before this particular case. I refer to the Robert Baxter wife killing case, a mirror image defence and performance by Professor Burrows. From the moment Professor Burrows entered the stand in the Freeman case, as the court transcripts will attest, it seems the judge had a rightful suspicion, if not contempt, for this so-called expert. As the judge said, he had crossed paths with Burrows before. While the defence counsel sought to impress the jury with the seemingly eminent credentials of witness Burrows, the judge persistently interrupted the flow of the defence counsel and questioned its relevance. Such was the back and forth of the defence lawyer and the judge on this point, that the court was adjourned on the matter. I refer to but one exchange. The defence counsel, speaking on Burrows' credentials said:

All right. Just while I am on my feet, the five pages of degrees, professional activities and memberships and chairmanships and not setting it out—

His Honour quips and interrupts—

Professors Burrows is eminently qualified. You only have to ask him.

The Defence Counsel: Yes, well the five—

His Honour again quips:

You might appreciate that our paths have crossed in the past.

The Defence Counsel: I was sort of guessing that.

What was it that motivated Professor Burrows to take the stand and argue against the plain truth? Or is it for Professor Burrows a case of 'what is truth'? The position Professor Burrows holds at Melbourne university is quoted in the court transcripts and used to display his eminence before the jury. Professor Burrows is a professorial fellow of the Department of Psychiatry, so I say that the university ought to remove him from that position for the evidence he gave in the Freeman case. The university's reputation must surely be sullied if Professor Burrows remains in that position. I call upon the vice-chancellor to take a stand for common decency and reject the professor's actions. I call upon the vice-chancellor to consider all the facts, to deliberate beyond the excuses like academic freedom or acting outside the university's jurisdiction, and consider the case, its effect on family and society and the university's reputation. I would think that a Melbourne university student of psychiatry would be in peril of misdirection under such a faculty contributor, however occasional.

I do not rise on this issue and make such claims lightly. Indeed, I am only too aware of how people's lives have been changed, ruined, hurt and affected by this case. It would be easier to let it drift into the mist. However I believe I am compelled to use my position on such an occasion for such a purpose so Professor Burrows may be prevented from being used as a star or eminent witness again.