Greg Lynn: Convicted killer pilot appeals conviction over Carol Clay’s murder in missing campers case
Lawyers acting for jailed ex-pilot Greg Lynn have argued his murder conviction should be overturned because his trial was tainted by the prosecution and the jury’s verdict “made no sense”.
Killer pilot Greg Lynn’s long-awaited appeal is underway in a Melbourne court as his lawyers argue the trial was corrupted by an “illegitimate attack” on his credibility and the jury’s verdict “made no sense”.
Wearing a dark suit, the convicted murderer smiled and nodded at his barrister, Dermot Dann KC, as he entered the Victorian Court of Appeal on Friday, holding a clear folder of paperwork, handwritten notes and photographs.
Lynn, 59, was found guilty by a jury on June 25 last year of murdering Carol Clay, 73, in Victoria’s remote high country more than four years earlier.
Ms Clay had vanished while camping with Russell Hill, 74, in the Wonnangatta Valley in March 2020, before Lynn led police to their incinerated remains some 20 months later.
He was acquitted of Mr Hill’s murder by the jury.
Lynn was jailed for a maximum of 32 years last October for what Justice Michael Croucher labeled a “a violent, brutal, horrific death effected with a weapon designed to kill”.
Now, just over a year after the sentence was handed down, Lynn is appealing both the conviction and sentence.
Lynn was seated directly in front of a packed public gallery containing about 30 members of the media, family of Mr Hill and Ms Clay, and members of the public.
For much of the hearing he sat passively watching over his glasses and was seen on occasion jotting down notes.
A notable absence in court was Lynn’s wife, Melanie Lynn, and his two sons.
Opening his remarks to the panel of judges, Mr Dann said the trial had played out last year with the prosecution operating “outside of the rules” that govern a fair trial.
During the trial, Mr Dann argued, Crown prosecutor Daniel Porceddu breached a legal principle by failing to give Lynn a chance to respond to allegations while he was in the witness box.
Mr Dann raised a number of other issues in the trial, including the prosecution “inventing” claims during the trial such as Lynn never expecting the couple’s bodies to be found.
“The whole defence case relied on the credibility of the applicant’s account (of two accidental deaths),” Mr Dann said.
“Mr Lynn’s credibility in the eyes of the jury was absolutely vital.”
At trial, Lynn gave an account that would have cleared him from blame if accepted by the jury — Ms Clay shot as his firearm discharged during a struggle with Mr Hill and Mr Hill later falling on his knife after attacking Lynn in grief.
Mr Dann argued it was an “insurmountable difficulty” for the prosecution to try and claim this “illegitimate attack” on his client’s credibility was not successful.
Mr Dann argued that the prosecution had committed “outrageous” breaches of the rules governing trials and the guilty verdict should be overturned.
“The court has a duty to intervene in circumstances where a substantial miscarriage of justice occured,” he said.
The justices pushed Mr Dann on why he did not ask for the jury to be dismissed and noted the judge largely admonished the prosecution for their breaches, giving the jury directions on this.
“It seems a forensic choice was made, to borrow the phrase from Justice Priest, to roll the dice and maximise his chance at an acquittal,” Justice Peter Kidd said.
In response, Mr Dann argued his client was placed in a “impossible forensic choice”, noting if they requested a fresh trial the prosecution would have a chance to “mend their hand”.
In a separate argument, Mr Dann submitted the jury had travelled down a “improper pathway” in reaching a not guilty verdict for Mr Hill’s murder and guilty for Ms Clay’s.
He said it was likely the jury had found Ms Clay was murdered to cover up Mr Hill’s death — a reasoning pathway they were directed by the trial judge they could not follow unless they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Mr Hill was murdered.
The barrister said this made some sense in a “factual context” but “legally it made no sense”.
“There is absolutely no doubt the jury didn’t follow that direction,” he said.
“This was done as an all or nothing case, there was never a pathway laid out by the prosecution on how you could have a split verdict.”
Mr Dann argued the “deluge of impermissible material and submissions” put to the jury created a real risk the verdict was unsafe.
“What’s on the line is the prospect of dying in jail,” he said.
Justice Phillip Priest raised whether it would have been appropriate for a reasonable jury to find Lynn guilty, based on the evidence Ms Clay was shot in the head and his actions afterwards as an “implied admission of his own guilt”.
“We know beyond any doubt Ms Clay was shot in the head,” he said.
“The only person who knows precisely how that occured was your client... your client then set about obliterating every piece of evidence that would cast light on how that occurred.”
Mr Dann disagreed, saying the verdict “has to take into account the events of the trial”, including Lynn providing an unchallenged version of events.
Trial was fair, verdict was appropriate: Director of Public Prosecutions
In response, the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC, acknowledged there were issues with the way Mr Porceddu ran the Crown’s case, but maintained the result was not a miscarriage of justice.
The court was told Justice Croucher, who presided over the trial, had identified 17 breaches of the Browne and Dunn rule — where prosecutors must put any matters concerning their case that are inconsistent with a witness’ evidence to that witness — and given the jury directions on these.
Mr Kissane argued these directions were “favourable to the accused in the extreme” and submitted some of the 17 directions were not necessary.
“What I am submitting is when one goes through the list of breaches the accused got the benefit,” he said.
Justice Priest challenged the Director on this, pointing out that Justice Croucher appeared to be “so concerned” about Mr Porceddu’s behaviour he felt the need to give strong directions.
“I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a direction as strong as this one criticising the way the prosecutor conducted cross-examination,” he said.
“A prosecutor, as a minister of justice, should not struggle for a conviction at any cost.”
Mr Kissane said he was not arguing the judge was wrong, but suggested Mr Porceddu had “over-egged it” at times and the full 17 directions was unnecessary.
“We say once the direction is given there’s no miscarriage of justice,” he said.
Responding to Mr Dann’s argument the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, Mr Kissane disputed this.
He argued the jury was entitled to reject Lynn’s account and find him guilty of Ms Clay’s murder using the evidence of her death and his post-offence conduct.
“It was well open for the jury to find the accused not guilty in relation to Mr Hill but guilty in relation to Ms Clay,” he said.
President of the Court of Appeal Justice Karin Emerton is hearing the appeal alongside Justice Phillip Priest and Justice Peter Kidd.
The case will return before the Court of Appeal on Thursday next week, as parties make submissions on Lynn’s second appeal against his sentence.
The former Jetstar pilot maintains he did not murder anyone and both deaths were accidental before he embarked on a cover up fearing he would be wrongly blamed.
In appeal paperwork filed last November, Lynn outlined five grounds his lawyers would rely upon.
Lynn will argue Crown prosecutor Daniel Porceddu breached fairness rules during the trial by launching a “sustained attack” on his account of two accidental deaths.
He will also argue the way prosecutors approached the evidence of ballistics expert Senior Constable Paul Griffiths was a “serious departure” from the rules that govern fair trials.
The third and fourth grounds of appeal against Lynn’s conviction relate to how the jury reached their verdict, arguing they travelled down an “impermissible pathway” in their deliberations and that the verdict is “unsafe and unsatisfactory”.
Lynn will further argue his 32-year sentence — seven years above the standard sentence of 25 — is “manifestly excessive”.
In a letter penned to Victoria’s Supreme Court last year, Lynn wrote he was “perplexed” by the jury’s verdict.
“However, I accept that my decision to flee the scene and attempt to disappear, and all of my actions from that effect were selfish and callous in the extreme, causing family and friends of both Carol Clay and Russell Hill much grief and stress for 20 long months,” he wrote.
Presently, Lynn will be eligible for parole in 2045 aged 79.
