Jury saw granny killer’s record

The jury that convicted a man of the murder of a grandmother was given a transcript showing he was previously in prison.

Liselotte Watson, 85, was murdered in her home on Macleay Island, Queensland, in November 2012. Picture: Supplied by family

The jury that convicted a junk mail delivery man of the murder of a Macleay Island grandmother was given a prejudicial transcript showing he was previously in prison.

Lawyers for Steven Fennell have lodged written arguments for setting aside his conviction for the murder of 85-year-old Liselotte Watson and replacing it with an acquittal, after he was granted leave to appeal to the High Court.

The submissions say for a ­period of time each juror had transcripts with four references to Fennell’s time in prison. It was likely the jurors perused the document, but “oddly” Fennell’s ­defence did not apply to discharge the jury. “This may help to explain why the jury convicted on such an obviously weak case,” the submissions state.

Fennell was alleged to have been stealing from Ms Watson before bludgeoning her to death with a hammer or other blunt object in her home in November 2012. He had visited Watson almost daily, helping with her groceries, household chores and banking. The murder stunned the small community of 2500 residents in Queensland’s Moreton Bay, initially appearing to be a burglary.

The jury, before convicting Fennell in March 2016, wasn’t told he was previously jailed in Victoria for savagely bashing a woman during sex, or that he had a long history of fraud and was once suspected by insurers of burning down his own house.

Barristers Saul Holt QC and Kate Gover argue he was found guilty on a “profoundly weak circumstantial case”, raising doubts about claims the suspected murder weapon — a mass-produced hammer — belonged to Fennell.

The hammer was located in mangroves and after photographs of it appeared on the news, a couple came forward to say they recognised it as one they lent Fennell years earlier.

“Their evidence was problematic, raises significant questions about contamination of memory, and is the key reason as to why the verdict was unreasonable,” the submissions state.

An acquired brain injury affected his short-term memory, explaining gaps in his alibi, it said, and the Queensland Court of Appeal made “significant ­errors of fact” in failing to find the verdict was unreasonable.