Patriot Realm

Yesterday, one of our community members spoke about a film he watched called " Black and White." I had recently watched it and it triggered mixed emotions in me. It was based on the case of Max Stuart. It remains one of Australia's most controversial legal battles, marking a turning point in discussions around Indigenous rights, the death penalty, and potential miscarriages of justice in the country.

Today, I wonder what the outcome would have been.  A case that never made it to the courts because of Cultural Differences?  A case never discussed in media because of Misinformation laws?  Never championed by the Christian Church because it might upset the Islamists?  Have we as societies become so precious about diversity that Justice is no longer part of our vocabulary because it is not inclusive enough? 

It was two men - Rupert Murdoch, the now enemy of the Left and Father Tom Dixon, a passionate Priest from the Catholic Church who saved this Aboriginal man from the noose. If "they " are to destroy the Church and hobble the media, who will come to the rescue when it is our turn? 

This case, dating back to 1959, centered around the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, Mary Olive Hattam, in Ceduna, South Australia. Max Stuart, an Arrernte Aboriginal man, was accused, convicted, and sentenced to death in a trial marred by questions of racial prejudice, police conduct, and the reliability of his confession.

In December 1958, Mary Olive Hattam was found brutally raped and murdered on a beach near Ceduna. The community was shocked, and there was an immediate push to find the perpetrator. Stuart, who was known to have been in the area, quickly became a suspect. A man of Aboriginal descent, Stuart was viewed with suspicion by a predominantly white society, and within days of his arrest, police had extracted a confession from him.

Stuart's confession would later become the central controversy of the case. Given that he spoke little English and was illiterate, many questioned whether he could have fully understood the statements he allegedly made. Stuart himself claimed the confession was coerced and that he had been beaten by police during his interrogation.

Stuart’s trial began in early 1959, lasting only a few days. Stuart was found guilty and sentenced to hang. The prosecution relied heavily on his confession, which was read in court, even though no independent legal advisor had been present during its recording. 

The conviction of Stuart, a poorly educated Indigenous man, for the murder of a white child sparked widespread public debate. Many Australians, both within the legal community and the general public, felt uncomfortable with the speed of the trial and the questionable methods used to obtain the confession. The media played a significant role in amplifying concerns about the case, with journalists and legal experts questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Rupert Murdoch, then a young newspaper owner, took a particular interest in the case. His paper, The News, ran a series of articles that sharply criticised the trial, the police investigation, and the South Australian government’s handling of the affair. This marked one of the first significant media-led campaigns to scrutinise a legal case in Australia, showing how the press could influence public opinion and challenge government authority.

This was the only clip I could find but the subtitles are in English. 

The legal battle didn’t end with Stuart’s initial conviction. His defense team, spearheaded by the noted barrister Roderic Chamberlain, launched a series of appeals, questioning the validity of the confession and the fairness of the trial. The case eventually reached the High Court of Australia, where Stuart’s legal team argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and that Stuart’s confession was unreliable.

Despite the high-profile nature of the case and the growing public concern, the High Court upheld Stuart’s conviction. The case was then taken to the Privy Council in London, the highest court of appeal for Australian cases at the time. However, the Privy Council also dismissed the appeal.

Amid growing calls for justice reform and mounting pressure from the media, the South Australian government eventually commuted Stuart’s death sentence to life imprisonment in September 1959. This decision came after Stuart had spent months on death row, awaiting execution. The government’s intervention was seen as a response to the widespread public outcry and the perception that justice had not been fairly administered.

The Max Stuart case had a lasting impact on Australia’s legal and political landscape. 

The case also highlighted the role of the media in shaping public opinion and holding the government to account.

Max Stuart was eventually released from prison in 1973 after serving 14 years. He lived until 2014, continuing to assert his innocence until his death.

Well, that is a brief overview and summary of what the film was about. 

When I watched it a few days ago, I was struck by several things. 

Firstly, that the aboriginal man actually was aboriginal, ( incidentally, brilliantly played by David Ngoombujarra ) and there was no doubt that Max Stuart was indeed a genuine  Arrernte man. I would not have felt the need to suggest a DNA test, as is the case in so many people these days who identify as Aboriginal..... 

Secondly, he would have been hanged without the help of the Catholic Church and the media.