Brisbane, Australia CNN —
An Australian mother who spent two decades in prison after being wrongly found guilty of killing her four children was officially overturned on Thursday, as her lawyers called for legal reform and “significant” compensation.
Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned and released in June on the recommendation of retired judge Tom Bathurst, who reexamined all the evidence presented to her in 2003 and found “reasonable doubt” about her guilt.
But clearing her name required a formal decision from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, and on Thursday a panel of judges agreed she should be acquitted of all charges, capping one of the country's biggest miscarriages of justice.
Outside court, Folbigg emotionally thanked her supporters who had worked tirelessly to convince the New South Wales government and legal system that new scientific evidence warranted closer scrutiny of her beliefs.
“The time it took to see today’s outcome cost a lot of people,” Folbigg said, standing alongside her lawyers and closest friends. “I hoped and prayed that one day I could stand here without my name being cleared.”
Folbigg was jailed in 2003 on three counts of murder and one count of manslaughter after her four babies died more than a decade since 1989.
No physical evidence was presented that she had killed them, but the jury was satisfied that the likelihood of all four dying of natural causes was so unlikely that it must have been murder. Certain passages in her diary were also interpreted as admissions of guilt.
It was only in 2019 that an investigation into her convictions found that there was “no reasonable doubt” that she committed the crimes. However, further investigation began in 2022 after scientists discovered a previously unknown mutated gene in her two daughters that could have been fatal.
The evidence provided a genetic explanation for the children's deaths, which raised “reasonable doubt” about their convictions and was enough to convince a judge to recommend their pardon.
Folbigg's first baby, Caleb, died in 1989, followed by Patrick in 1991, Sarah in 1993 and finally Laura in 1999.
The first three deaths were initially attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a term used when babies under one year old die for no apparent reason.
At 18 months, Laura was Folbigg's longest-living child and police began investigating after a forensic pathologist classified the cause of death as “undetermined”. She was tried and convicted because newspaper headlines declared her “Australia's worst serial killer”.
Folbigg was imprisoned for decades, despite acquittals in similar cases in the United Kingdom that were also based on the “Meadow Law,” the discredited British pediatrician Roy Meadow's false maxim that sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy. two already suspicious and three is murder.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Andrew Bell said Court of Appeal judges agreed with Bathurst's findings that “substantial and extensive new scientific evidence” outweighed the evidence heard at their trial. They also found that her diaries, when viewed in the overall context and supported by new psychological and psychiatric reports, “do not constitute reliable admissions of guilt.”
Outside court, Folbigg's lawyer Rhanee Rego said Folbigg's legal team would now seek compensation, which she said would be “significant.”
“I'm not prepared to put a specific number on it, but it will be larger than any major payment that has been made to date,” she said.
More importantly, they are urging all Australian states to establish an independent review body, such as a Criminal Cases Review Commission, to prevent future wrongful convictions.
“The suffering of an innocent woman can and should be recognized and be an important impetus for improving our justice system,” Rego said.
Anna-Maria Rabia, chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science, reiterated calls for an independent review commission in all jurisdictions in the country.
“Here in New South Wales we have just seen Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions struck down after 20 years in prison. If a case of this magnitude doesn’t trigger law reform, I’m not sure what will,” she said.
“It is time for Australia to review its legal system to ensure it is better scientifically informed, particularly given the pace at which scientific discoveries and technological advances are changing.”