Parents accused of starving ballerina daughter to face retrial following ‘miscarriage of justice’
Two parents accused of nearly starving their ballerina daughter to death will face a retrial after the Court of Appeal ruled the trial judge’s behavior amounted to a “miscarriage of justice”.
Perth’s parents were jailed last year after the girl became the focus of authorities when her ballet teacher made a report about her boyish appearance.
The parents were each accused of two acts that caused their children to suffer.
After repeatedly giving authorities excuses for her thin appearance, they were forced to take their home-schooled daughter for medical treatment.
The couple told authorities that their daughter was born prematurely, was two years younger than her actual age, and was on a vegan diet.
Doctors determined that the 15-year-old girl weighed the same as a nine-year-old child, was severely malnourished and socially underdeveloped.
The parent appealed the conviction on the grounds that there was a miscarriage of justice and the trial was unfair as a result of the trial judge’s conduct. They were released on bail in April.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal accepted that the hearing was unfair, stating that Judge Linda Black had refused to adjourn the hearing, even though there was a doctor’s report stating that the mother had become ill in the second week of the hearing and was unfit to attend court for two days.
“The learned trial judge not only rejected the request for adjournment (which the State did not oppose), the Hon’ble Judge ordered the hearing to continue in his physical absence,” the judgment stated.
During the mother’s absence, she was required to stay in another room where she could not see or hear the evidence from a distance, but could not be seen by anyone other than the trial judge and could not be heard in the courtroom.
The court held that the applicant’s right to be present throughout the trial was not justified by any legal exception and had led to a miscarriage of justice.
The court also found that the judge had interfered with or interrupted the statements taken from the parents, in stark contrast to the interference with the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
