State defends detectives sued by man acquitted of island murder

The state has denied allegations that two Queensland detectives misused their power when they pursued a man over the murder of a Moreton Bay grandmother – a crime for which he was later acquitted.

Steven John Mark Fennell is suing the Queensland government for $5.5 million in damages over his time in prison following the 2012 death of Liselotte Watson.

The 85-year-old grandmother was found dead on the bedroom floor of her Macleay Island home after she was repeatedly bashed in the head with a blunt object.

Steven Fennell was convicted of Liselotte Watson’s murder, but was later released after spending six years behind bars. Credit: Aresna Villanueva

Fennell, a former junk-mail delivery driver, was charged, convicted and later acquitted of the murder after spending six years behind bars. He had always denied the allegations and was released after a High Court appeal in 2019.

Prosecutors alleged Fennell was a gambler who killed Watson to cover up the fact he was using her money to fund his habit.

Liselotte Watson was found dead in her Macleay Island home in 2012.Credit: Nine News

Watson’s family were devastated by the High Court decision and stood by the police investigation.

No one else has been charged with her murder.

In Fennell’s initial claim for damages, he listed the state, and the two investigating detectives, Justin Suffolk and Graham Kershaw, as defendants.

His claim included allegations that the prosecution was driven by malice, and there was misfeasance in public office by the detectives.

In defence documents, the state denied Suffolk or Kershaw did anything that “amounted to misfeasance in public office or abuse of process”.

The state said it believed the allegation to be untrue because the officers performed their roles with authority, without reckless indifference and in good faith.

Fennell’s legal team recently filed an amended claim, removing the two detectives as defendants to focus on the state.

The role played by the detectives remains integral to Fennell’s case.

According to the lawsuit, Fennell claimed he was summoned by officers to the Crime and Misconduct Commission in December 2012 to answer questions about his knowledge of Watson’s death.

He claimed the prosecution was driven by malice, and that the police knew the evidence against Fennell was inadequate before requesting the CMC hearing.

The state denied there was malice behind the prosecution, and also noted that Kershaw was on leave at the time.

Defence documents state Watson’s body was discovered on November 13, 2012, and Kershaw was involved in the investigation between November 13 and November 21.

On November 21, he suffered an injury while on the job, and then went on sick leave the following day. He did not return to work until about April 2013, and did not have further involvement in the investigation, according to court documents.

Suffolk was involved in the investigation between November 17 and March 14, 2013, when Fennell was charged with murder.

In their defence documents, the state admitted Fennell was imprisoned for the period alleged, but otherwise denied the allegations, and believed them to be untrue because “there was no malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, or abuse of process”.

The state denied Fennell’s allegations that he was the only person police could establish had the opportunity and motive beyond any other person who might have committed the murder. They said the prosecution progressed in circumstances where there was a prima facie case, albeit circumstantial, as was conceded at his committal.

The state also refused to accept, or was unable to confirm, Fennell’s version of key events in the investigation, including his claim that about 2pm on November 15, 2012, police divers located a Translink wallet and a claw hammer at Thompson Point.

The state said Fennell’s imprisonment was because he was lawfully charged with Watson’s murder, lawfully detained pending trial, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a judge of a superior court.

Notwithstanding the decision of the High Court, Fennell’s detention was at all times justified at law, the state argued.

The case remains before the Supreme Court in Brisbane.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.