Date of Incident: 1978-1979
Date of Conviction: 1981
Exoneration Date: 1982
Charge: Attempted murder
Conviction: Attempted murder
Sentence: 15 years
Sentence Served: 1 year
Contributing Causes: Poor forensic science
Compensation:
Emily PERRY
Emily Perry was charged with two counts of attempting to murder her husband, Ken Perry. The prosecution alleged that between July and November 1978, and then February and October 1979, Ms Perry administered poison to her husband with the intention of killing him.
There was no evidence that directly implicated Emily, and there was never any suggestion that she administered the poison to her husband unintentionally.
Ms Perry appealed to the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal, but her case was dismissed. With no other options, she then appealed to the High Court of Australia. The appeal was on the basis that the trial judge had wrongly admitted evidence from the pathologist, which the prosecution believed, demonstrated that Emily’s second husband, her brother and a de facto partner had all died of poisoning. They also alluded that this was at the hands of Emily.
The High Court appeal was successful. The High Court agreed that Ken Perry had become ill from poisoning at various times. However, the pathologist did not examine Ken’s workshop. He renovated old organs and pianolas, which often contained in them rat or insect poison. The instruments also contained dust from crumbling lead pipes.
The High Court agreed that the poisoning was from some form of arsenic, most likely in the form of lead arsenate.
The High Court stated that the prosecution should not have been allowed to admit evidence of the three other deaths of Emily’s second husband, brother and de facto, as she was never charged in relation to their deaths. Justice Lionel Murphy stated that the prosecution’s evidence fell far short of the proper standard. If each of the alleged poisonings were looked at individually, the evidence would not justify a finding that Emily had poisoned any one of them.
The appeal to the High Court was successful and a new trial was ordered. The prosecution decided that there was no adequate basis on which to start a new trial against Emily.
