Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[they'll get you]

Yep, bet he punched the wall when he heard. It pleases me to think of him stewing for another three months. Heaven only knows he got a light enough sentence in the first place; it was such an outrage to think of it being reduced, and, as you so rightly point out, with his reputation given a boost, as though what he did was somehow less dishonourable when it's given a different name. I just hope they get it right next time.

That made me laugh! I hope it hurt.

 

[Flinders]

Nova 100 News (@Nova100News)
13/05/2016, 3:16 PM
The fate of Brisbane wife killer Gerard #Badenclay will be decided in the High Court on July 26 with an appeal set. pic.twitter.com/IumXJx5LWE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fuskier]

Hearing Date: July 26, 2016

David MurrayVerified account ‏@TheMurrayD
The High Court has set a date for the Baden-Clay hearing: July 26 in Brisbane

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...o-hear-appeal-on-july-26-20160513-goujtv.html
Gerard Baden-Clay: High Court to hear appeal on July 26
May 13 2016 - 2:27PM
by Kim Stephens

"The bench, which will comprise of up to seven of the most senior figures of the Australian judiciary, will then take between three and six months to consider the arguments of the prosecution and defence, before making what will be the final ruling on one of the highest profile and long-running cases in Queensland history. Their ruling will be final. There are no further avenues for appeal"...

 

[Fuskier]

FYI

David Murray ‏@TheMurrayD
Four reasons High Court can make Gerard Baden-Clay a murderer after special leave to appeal granted
"The High Court has put itself in a position to restore Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction based on arguments from Queensland's top prosecutor..."
https://t.co/V5e18XcCeg
www.couriermail.com.au

 

[they'll get you]

THIS IS NECESSARY BUT WHO'S PAYING FOR THIS ??


.......seven of the most senior figures of the Australian judiciary, $$$
.......will then take between three and six months to consider $$$

.......what will be the final ruling on one of the highest profile and long-running cases in Queensland history.

Their ruling will be final. There are no further avenues for appeal.


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...o-hear-appeal-on-july-26-20160513-goujtv.html

Before the end of 2016, Gerard Baden-Clay will find out once and for all if, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

The High Court judges will hear the appeal by Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions, Michael Byrne, QC from 10.15am in Brisbane.

 

[they'll get you]

"no citizen is above the law", Gerbil!!


An interesting read......http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/education/to_be_called_the_high_court_of_australia.rtf



“The ultimate responsibility of the High Court is to maintain the rule of law. No government and no citizen is above the law. Australia’s basic law is the Constitution. In order to uphold the rule of law the judiciary has to be independent. Judges decide disputes between citizens or between citizens and governments, and sometimes between State and Federal Governments. They decide according to law and free from the influence of any government or any other source of power. The Court has to be independent if it is to fulfil its roles as a constitutional Court and a court of final appeal.”
(Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice)

 

[Fuskier]

FYI

Good find TGY. .http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/educ..._australia.rtf

Paragraph 6:
Only cases of major importance are heard by the High Court. To be granted what is called “special leave to appeal to the High Court” a case will usually have to raise new points of law; be deemed to be of high public importance; be likely to involve many future cases; involve questions of law that have been decided in inconsistent ways by two or more lower courts; or involve the interests of the administration of justice, such that they require consideration by the High Court...

Paragraph 11:
The Court’s decisions set the precedents that will be considered by thousands of lawyers across the country when advising clients on their prospects ...

 

[possumheart]

This is important for society's collective mental health. I couldn't be happier.

FYI

Good find TGY. .http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/educ..._australia.rtf

Paragraph 6:
Only cases of major importance are heard by the High Court. To be granted what is called “special leave to appeal to the High Court” a case will usually have to raise new points of law; be deemed to be of high public importance; be likely to involve many future cases; involve questions of law that have been decided in inconsistent ways by two or more lower courts; or involve the interests of the administration of justice, such that they require consideration by the High Court...

Paragraph 11:
The Court’s decisions set the precedents that will be considered by thousands of lawyers across the country when advising clients on their prospects ...

 

[Mountain Misst]

THIS IS NECESSARY BUT WHO'S PAYING FOR THIS ??


.......seven of the most senior figures of the Australian judiciary, $$$
.......will then take between three and six months to consider $$$

.......what will be the final ruling on one of the highest profile and long-running cases in Queensland history.

Their ruling will be final. There are no further avenues for appeal.


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...o-hear-appeal-on-july-26-20160513-goujtv.html

Before the end of 2016, Gerard Baden-Clay will find out once and for all if, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

The High Court judges will hear the appeal by Queensland's Director of Public Prosecutions, Michael Byrne, QC from 10.15am in Brisbane.

IMO this is an investment in the future for all victims of violence. I am more than happy to give my 7.5cents. Isn't that what we paid for the original ABC (media)?

The groundswell has been huge in Aus against family violence. May it continue bringing reform to the legal system. This is how we can lead the way globally.

:loveyou:

 

[Mountain Misst]

We have all been astounded at the perceived arrogance of GBC, throughout the entire case . When we look to the ancients to salve our collective pain in this regard, there is always wisdom to be found IMO. In the times of early western society and before modern religions, this arrogance was known as the consequence of 'hubris'; a Greek term defined as arrogance, or excessive pride.

There is a legendary myth, popular in ancient literature, poetry and art - that explains this concept. It is the story of Niobe. "If you act with arrogance towards the Gods, then you will be punished. Actually Niobe's story is a classic example of the wrath of gods against human weaknesses and has been beautifully narrated in Homer's Iliad."

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Niobe-Greek-mythology

May Niobe sit with the Hight court hearing in Brisbane on 26 July 2016.

 

[Ochre Blue]

FYI

Good find TGY. .http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/educ..._australia.rtf

Paragraph 6:
Only cases of major importance are heard by the High Court. To be granted what is called “special leave to appeal to the High Court” a case will usually have to raise new points of law; be deemed to be of high public importance; be likely to involve many future cases; involve questions of law that have been decided in inconsistent ways by two or more lower courts; or involve the interests of the administration of justice, such that they require consideration by the High Court...

Paragraph 11:
The Court’s decisions set the precedents that will be considered by thousands of lawyers across the country when advising clients on their prospects ...

Thanks very much to both of you. Will it be heard in Canberra or Brisbane, does anybody know? It'd be 'great' to be there.

 

[Mountain Misst]

Thanks very much to both of you. Will it be heard in Canberra or Brisbane, does anybody know? It'd be 'great' to be there.

As previous posters have commented - the High Court hearing will be heard in Brisbane - commencing at 10:15am, 26th July 2016

 

[Couldbe]

Quote Originally Posted by Couldbe View Post
JMO - The hypothesis of the QCA Judges proposes the possibility that during an altercation between Gerard and Allison, she fell and hit her head and that caused her death.

Points against:

. Not likely to be immediate death; Impermissible speculation, cause of death unknown.
. If it was immediate death, how could it occur so quickly? What evidence? / No evidence found to suggest death from a blow to her head. As above.
. If still alive, duty of care wasn’t exercised by Gerard to preserve Allison’s life; Complex legal argument but in any case this failure does not point to intent.
. If he erroneously thought she was dead and carried her to the Captiva and transported her, while still alive, out to the bridge, it beggars belief how he would not have noticed she was still alive. She was then left to die. I have a relative who is a paramedic and we were at a family gathering recently and a young child asked "how do you know if a person is dead?" and the short answer was, sometimes you don't. She recalled a number of cases when she was about to "call it" but the patient was revived. If a medical professional is uncertain of status, it's unreasonable to expect an untrained person in an extreme state of panic to be able to determine whether a person is dead or alive.

JCB, thank you for your comments on my points against the hypotheses, which you have added in bold print.
I have further thoughts as below, on which I would also appreciate your comments if you get some time?
Working backwards:

1) Too much time elapsed to establish from body post mortem….. cause of death;

2) No witnesses who saw anybody being involved in the act of death of Allison;

3) Motive for wanting Allison’s death / versus what action(s) did he take to keep her alive?

4) Was it instant death following a hit to Allison’s head? (Not known, but Gerard consistently said that he went to bed at 10 pm and knew absolutely nothing of what had happened to Allison at all).

5) Panic when he thought she was dead …… Was his immediate action to attempt to revive her himself, and he failed, but did not call ‘000’ to seek help for professional revival?
(Calling ‘000’ would be a perfectly reasonable response to be expected of any reasonable person). / Did he seek help from anyone else ….. ? (No witness has come forward).

6) But instead, his Defence Lawyer claims he could have panicked and made the decision to dispose of her body?
Thereafter denying to the very end (on the Stand during the trial) that ….. ”I did not kill my wife”.

7) In his ‘possible’ panic hypothesis…… was it this action / or lack of it, that actually caused Allison’s death?

8) The reason in the hypothesis based on evidence involved in disposal of her body is ‘Panic’.
…… is there any other evidence which supports that Gerard was in a state of ‘panic’? This state of panic could be described as sudden fear of some repercussions he would suffer in the eyes of the Law, and which could have caused him to act irresponsibly and think only of himself instead of trying to save Allison; his panic enabled him to execute disposing of her body and trying to conceal the scratches evidence, without his so called panic evidencing itself in conflict with any grief for his wife.

So, in the absence of taking steps to seek outside assistance for Allison, based on his desire to be with his mistress, and his financial gain from Allison’s death, avoiding calling ‘000’ or other help to attempt to revive and save Allison would display his motivation to prefer her death be sustained.

9) Or, in examining if he was in a state of ‘panic’, there was no shock or grief in what had occurred, and did the evidence point to a calculated state of events by Gerard to conceal what had caused Allison’s death and her disposal to its position under the bridge?

 

[Fuskier]

Thanks very much to both of you. Will it be heard in Canberra or Brisbane, does anybody know? It'd be 'great' to be there.

Hi Ochre Blue, given that only cases of major importance are heard by the High Court [as quoted above], I anticipate that many lawyers and lawyers-in-training might be in attendance to witness the HCA in action on this high public profile case. Also many interested members of both families would most likely be in attendance along with interested community members who have been following the case. The logistics of how the HCA will determine who can attend and how it will proceed is unknown at this stage. BUT if we were able to attend, it would be 'great' to be there. :seeya:

 

[kiwijayne]

Man I wish I was still in Australia to see this through till the end.

 

[Fluffykins]

From The Australian, June 11, 2016:

A jury’s murder conviction of *notorious killer Gerard Baden-Clay was correct, but Queensland’s highest court subsequently made several mistakes in downgrading the verdict to manslaughter, the High Court heard yesterday.

One of the state’s most senior lawyers, former solicitor-general Walter Sofronoff QC, said in legal submissions filed yesterday that “the (Queensland) Court of Appeal fell into error by conducting a piecemeal evaluation of the evidence rather than looking at it as a whole”. He said the Court of Appeal was wrong in concluding there was no evidence of a motive to kill.

Allison Baden-Clay, the wife of the prominent Brookfield real estate agency owner and mother of their three daughters, was found dead on the bank of a rural creek near Brisbane in April 2012.

Her husband faced severe stress at the time with mounting debts, a failing business, and pressure from his mistress Toni McHugh, who was urging him to leave his wife. Her death would mean a payout to him from life insurance policies of $975,000, clearing his debts and paving the way for him to be with his mistress. A jury delivered a murder verdict in July 2014, but the Court of Appeal, led by newly appointed Chief Justice Catherine Holmes, found late last year that the trial evidence against Baden-Clay was “neutral on the issue of intent” to kill.

The Court of Appeal said the financial and marital stress “did not provide a motive, or point to murder rather than manslaughter” and “a reasonably open hypothesis was that (Allison) had attacked him, scratching his face. In endeavouring to make her stop, he had killed her without intending to do so”, adding it was possible he delivered a blow that caused her to fall and “hit her head”.

However, Mr Sofronoff, acting for the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions, which appealed against the decision after a public outcry, said in his written submissions that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was “erroneous”.

“First, not only was there no evidence to support ‘a blow’ or ‘a fall hitting her head against a hard surface’ to compete with the prosecution case, (Baden-Clay) positively denied any such thing,” Mr Sofronoff stated.

He added there was an “absence of any evidentiary foundation for the factual hypothesis posed by the Court of Appeal”.

Mr Sofronoff’s submissions state that, “on the evidence, the jury could conclude that, having killed his wife, (he) immediately engaged in a deliberate and calcul*ated series of actions to shroud his involvement in her death and to deny police any knowledge of his motive to kill her. He bundled his wife’s body into the back of her own car … and discarded (her body) in the mud of a riverbank ... he then undertook an elaborate and cold-blooded deception to hide his involvement and his reason to kill her.”

The High Court is to hear the appeal in Brisbane next month.

 

[Amee]

[h=1]Convicted killer Wei Li tells SA court his appeal is similar to Gerard Baden-Clay’s upcoming case[/h]:facepalm:

A FORMER elite student who killed his mother has compared his appeal to that of Gerard Baden-Clay and urged it not be determined until after the high-profile interstate murder case.
On Wednesday, counsel for Wei “Daniel” Li told the Full Court of the Court of Criminal Appeal it may need to wait until after July to decide their client’s fate.
Kevin Borick, QC, said Li’s manslaughter conviction raised “substantial issues of law” akin to those that will be debated when Baden-Clay returns to court in Queensland next month.


“There is uncertainty about the verdict here, as there is in Baden-Clay ... this court might just need to consider what’s happening in that case,” he said.
Justice David Peek said he doubted that would be necessary.
“I don’t think that’s going to be much help to you ... (Baden-Clay) is a grant of special leave to appeal to the prosecution, not the defence,” he said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...e/news-story/63f7d315dda500a506802292dd78ec19

 

[JLZ]

Off-topic, but . . . I think I've found GBC's twin.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ilty-of-murdering-six-year-old-daughter-ellie

 

[they'll get you]

Defence respond to Gerard Baden-Clay's appeal

In written submissions filed to the High Court on Monday, Baden-Clay's defence team argued there was no direct evidence that he caused Allison's death or did so with the intention of murdering her.

The submission said the case against Baden-Clay depended entirely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had not exhausted the possibility Baden-Clay accidentally killed his wife.

"The scratches to the face say something about the relationship between the deceased and (Baden-Clay) but nothing about intention," the submission said.

"They do not show who initiated violence."

In written submissions lodged earlier this month, the DPP argued there was evidence for the jury to conclude Baden-Clay had motive to get "rid of his wife".


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...pond-to-baden-clay-appeal#esyeIHWC5wDBIth2.99


http://www.9news.com.au/sitecore/co...28/11/06/defence-respond-to-baden-clay-appeal

 

[Couldbe]

Defence respond to Gerard Baden-Clay's appeal

In written submissions filed to the High Court on Monday, Baden-Clay's defence team argued there was no direct evidence that he caused Allison's death or did so with the intention of murdering her.

The submission said the case against Baden-Clay depended entirely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had not exhausted the possibility Baden-Clay accidentally killed his wife.

"The scratches to the face say something about the relationship between the deceased and (Baden-Clay) but nothing about intention," the submission said.

"They do not show who initiated violence."

In written submissions lodged earlier this month, the DPP argued there was evidence for the jury to conclude Baden-Clay had motive to get "rid of his wife".


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...pond-to-baden-clay-appeal#esyeIHWC5wDBIth2.99


http://www.9news.com.au/sitecore/co...28/11/06/defence-respond-to-baden-clay-appeal

Still JMO - No “Innocence” -
The motivation led the Jury to look for the reason and the intention ……… but the convoluted hypothesis that was created by the Appeal Court Judges, serves as an excuse to avoid facing the fact that there is no innocence:
………….. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”, in that it is very likely that Gerard Baden Clay followed through his intention by staging his version of the events of that night and continuing his denial thereafter; and continued to do so during, the trial when he gave evidence under oath that he had cut himself while shaving;
not to mention his early claim to the insurance Company for Allison’s life insurance money.