Dad jailed for killing sons wins appeal

The man jailed for allegedly killing his three children by driving them into a dam
will face a fresh trial next year after a Victorian appeals court quashed his
conviction.
Victoria's Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday that there had been a miscarriage of
justice during Robert Farquharson's Victorian Supreme Court trial and that he face a
new trial in the first half of 2010.
Farquharson, 40, had appealed his sentence of life in jail with no parole for the
murders of Jai, 10, Tyler, seven, and Bailey, two.
He was accused of drowning the boys by driving them into a dam near Winchelsea in
Victoria's southwest on Father's Day 2005.
During his trial, the crown argued Farquharson deliberately drove his car into the
dam, as an act of revenge against his ex-wife after their marriage break-up.
But Farquharson maintained his innocence, saying the deaths were an accident and he
had blacked out during a coughing fit.
In their unanimous judgment, the appeal judges upheld a number of grounds of his
appeal.
Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and justices Geoffrey Nettle and Robert Redlich
accepted there were errors in the way the trial judge presented evidence to the jury
and the conduct of the prosecution.
They found the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury about testimony from a
star witness.
They also found the prosecution failed to tell the defence that the witness had a
criminal record.
As such, they ordered Farquharson's conviction be quashed, his sentence set aside,
and that he face a new trial.
Outside court, the boys' grandfather Bob Gambino said there was little the family
could do.
"It is just out of our hands, it is the judges' decision," Mr Gambino said.
"That is about all I have to say."
Farquharson's lawyer Peter Morrissey made no comment as he left court.
Chief Justice Warren said the Court of Appeal will hear a bail application for
Farquharson on Monday afternoon.
She urged the public and media to show appropriate restraint as the matter remained
before the court.
"The issues in the case are complex, and emotive, and readily capable of being
misunderstood," she said.
"Since we have now ordered that the appellant be re-tried, it is vital that those
problems not be exacerbated by inappropriate public discussion or publication,
including expressions of personal opinions about the case."