Kathleen Folbigg receives Ex Gratia Payment After Two Decades of Injustice: A Landmark Case & What It Means for Wrongful Convictions
The long fight for justice for Kathleen Folbigg has taken another step forward. After spending nearly 20 years in prison for the deaths of her four children,Folbigg was pardoned in June 2023 following groundbreaking scientific evidence that cast serious doubt on her convictions. Now, the new South Wales (NSW) government has confirmed an ex gratia payment will be made to the 57-year-old, acknowledging the profound failings in her case.
But what does this payment signify, and how does it compare to other instances of wrongful imprisonment and subsequent compensation in Australia? Let’s delve into the details, the controversy surrounding the amount, and the broader implications for the justice system.
A Case Built on Shifting Sands: The Folbigg Story
Kathleen Folbigg was initially convicted of three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter relating to the deaths of her children between 1989 and 1999. For years, the prosecution argued she deliberately harmed her children. However, this narrative began to unravel thanks to advancements in genetics and cardiology.
Specifically, the discovery of a rare genetic mutation – ALG13 – offered a compelling alternative explanation for the deaths, suggesting a natural cause rather than intentional harm. Two subsequent inquiries meticulously reviewed the evidence, ultimately leading to the overturning of her convictions. You can read more about the scientific breakthrough here.
Ex Gratia Payment: What Does It Mean?
The NSW Attorney-General, Michael Daley, confirmed the government’s decision to provide an ex gratia payment. Unlike compensation awarded by a court,ex gratia payments are discretionary,one-off amounts decided by the state cabinet. They are typically offered when there isn’t a clear legal precedent for a court-ordered payout.
This distinction is crucial. While acknowledging the injustice, it also highlights the limitations of the current system in addressing the immense harm caused by wrongful convictions.
Controversy Erupts: Is the Payment Enough?
The offer of compensation hasn’t been universally welcomed.Greens MP Sue Higginson has sharply criticized the payment, labeling it ”an absolute slap in the face” and a failure of leadership. She argues that Folbigg is owed substantial compensation to truly right the wrongs she endured for two decades.
Higginson’s sentiment reflects a growing demand for more robust and equitable compensation schemes for those wrongly imprisoned. The question remains: how do you adequately compensate someone for lost years, damaged reputation, and the profound emotional trauma of wrongful conviction?
Comparing Compensation: A Look at Australian Precedents
Folbigg’s case is not isolated. Australia has seen several instances of individuals wrongly convicted and later compensated. Here’s a comparison:
Lindy Chamberlain: Awarded $1.3 million in 1992 after being wrongly prosecuted for the death of her daughter, Azaria.
Scott Austic: Received $1.3 million (plus an earlier $250,000 payment) after serving nearly 13 years for a murder he didn’t commit.
David Eastman: Awarded $7 million by the ACT Supreme Court in 2019. This case is notable as it involved a court-ordered payout,unlike the ex gratia payments.
These examples demonstrate a wide range in compensation amounts, frequently enough reflecting the specifics of each case, the length of imprisonment, and the legal avenues available.
What Went Into Folbigg’s Claim?
Folbigg’s legal team,led by Rhanee Rego,built a complete claim. It included:
A detailed statement outlining her 24-year ordeal.
Submissions highlighting errors made by government agents.
An expert report assessing the extent of her losses.
This meticulous approach underscores the importance of thorough legal depiction in seeking redress for wrongful convictions. Rego herself emphasized that the system had ”failed Kathleen Folbigg once again,” even with the offer of compensation.
