A criminal cases review commission is one part of the solution.

Another is the repeal of the no-new-evidence rule at all stages of the appeal process.

Another is an overriding law granting immunity to any person who provides information leading to the quashing of a false conviction, even if that person actually committed the crime in question. Better to acquit the guilty than to convict the innocent, especially when the guilty are already off the hook anyway.

But governments won't do these things unless their hand is forced -- e.g. by threatening to litigate constitutional questions that they don't want to litigate. What questions? Here are two candidates:

http://www.grputland.com/2009/09/australian-payroll-taxes.html &
http://www.grputland.com/2011/09/drug-laws-not-laws-at-all.html .

grputland,

Political Power cannot be separated into Legislative power, Executive power and Judicial power without confusion.

It is simple: If a scepter is cut in three one gets the handle and the other two get stubbles.

You have more than once pointed to the readers of Online Opinion some abstruse Constitutional provisions and in the case of David Szach you concur with Tom Mann on the necessity of a Review Commission to overcome some juridical incongruities.

You rightly point to the necessity to admit new evidence and to safeguard informants in the appeal process.

I, conversely see in the lack of comments to this article the horrible sign that the great majority of Australians are sure that all is right and that what has happened to Szach, or the many innocently imprisoned, is only a rare accident they can live with.

Probably they are sure that our machinery of justice with Magistrate Courts, County Courts, Supreme Courts, Federal Courts, Children Courts... and, above all, High Court and tens of thousands of Lawyers and Clerks in spick-span monumental buildings, protect them.

Yet each one of us, anytime, can be tapped on the shoulder and marched into a padded room, from where, coming out, is a Houdini job.

Thank you for drawing attention to the issue of errors in Australian justice. Australia was once a godly and upright society, but now I find it is scary to realise that in our country, the innocent are not always protected, and the guilty are not always punished. It seems that our justice system, is not a justice of righteousness, but a justice of expediency.

I disagree with the first respondent who said, "Better to acquit the guilty than to convict the innocent". It is not better, it is just as bad. They both cause misery to all concerned, and both breed mistrust of our judicial system. As the book of Proverbs states, (Pr 17:15) "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."

We need to address both issues, and cease being afraid of independent bodies to may audit the processes of our conclusions. If we all desire the right and fair outcome, what have we got to lose.

AnthonyE: If we're going to be guided by the Old Testament, we can start with the oft-repeated requirement that every accusation be attested by two witnesses -- which involves the acceptance that if there is only one witness to a crime, the perpetrator will escape earthly punishment.

You can't punish all the guilty without also punishing some of the innocent. To say it is "better to acquit the guilty than to convict the innocent" is not to justify the wicked, but merely to be careful not to condemn the just.

I am unrepentant.

skeptic: You seem to miss the point of the separation of powers. The point is that it takes all three branches of government to take away your freedom, but only one to give it back.