Rajwinder Singh defence team’s closing arguments in Toyah Cordingley murder trial

Rajwinder Singh’s defence team has called him a “coward, not a killer”, urging the jury to acquit and accept that there are too many “other reasonable possibilities” that someone else killed Toyah Cordingley.

Rajwinder Singh’s defence team has called him a “coward, not a killer”, urging the jury to acquit and accept that there are too many “other reasonable possibilities” that someone else killed Toyah Cordingley.

Mr Singh, 40, a former nurse from Innisfail has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Ms Cordingley on October 21, 2018.

After two-and-a-half weeks of evidence and arguments, the jury is expected to retire on Friday to consider its verdict.

Defence barrister Angus Edwards KC has raised alternative suspects during the trial, including Ms Cordingley’s boyfriend Marco Heidenreich, schoolteacher Remy Fry and tiler Evan McCrea.

During closing arguments, he suggested other possibilities still were also open on the evidence.

Defence barrister Angus Edwards KC leaves the Cairns Supreme Court during a break in proceedings in the murder trial of Rajwinder Singh, who has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Toyah Cordingley on Wangetti Beach north of Cairns on October 21, 2018. Picture: Brendan Radke

He said the jury could not rule out that young people killed Ms Cordingley in a “robbery gone wrong”, or one of the “creepy men” seen on the beach that day, or pig hunters who carry knives in the tracks behind Wangetti Beach.

He also said the killing appeared to be a “crime of passion” committed by someone who had a problem with women, or a problem with Toyah Cordingley, and said Mr Singh had neither of those problems.

Ms Cordingley’s body was found by her father the morning after her disappearance and death, buried in a shallow sand grave about 1.5km from the southern carpark of Wangetti Beach, the court has been told.

Her throat had been cut and there were more than 26 stab wounds to her body, the court has been told.

In his closing, Mr Edwards said the police investigation was flawed.

He said investigators had not been able to properly account for unknown DNA at the scene, or for two other cars that drove a path similar to Ms Cordingley’s phone after she was believed to have died.

“If there was only one set of DNA, and only one car, it would be a compelling case,” Mr Edwards said.

“Do you not accept as a reasonable possibility, someone in one of those cars really knows what happens?

“Is it so unknown, in Cairns, for groups of young male offenders to go around?

“Is it outrageous to suggest that there might be young male offenders looking to steal from unsuspecting victims?”

He said Mr Singh had admitted to being at the beach that day so it was unsurprising his DNA was there.

Markers along the tree line at Wangetti Beach near where Ms Cordingley was buried and her dog was tied up taken on the day the jury attended a view of the site. Picture: Brendan Radke

He questioned, however, the origin of other DNA on Ms Cordingley’s body, and logs and sticks at the gravesite that could not be matched with any of the 90+ samples taken during the investigation, including Mr Singh’s.

“Mr Singh’s DNA having being at the scene may have simply been that he was there, because he saw what happened … He was a shedder of DNA who was there, who sat in the area looking at the ocean at what ultimately became the gravesite for Ms Cordingley,” Mr Edwards said.

He said Mr Singh’s sudden departure from Cairns, then to India, the day Ms Cordingley’s body was found could be explained by his panic after witnessing the killing.

He said Mr Singh had not been leaving behind an ideal life, but was leaving a “loveless marriage” and a job in which he was being bullied.

“He wouldn’t be the first deadbeat dad to walk out for a pint of milk and never come back. He had nothing to stay for,” Mr Edwards said.

“Some people get involved. Some think it is someone else’s problem.

“He is not a killer, but a coward,” Mr Edwards said.

“He stuck his head in the sand, wished it all away, devoted himself to religion and disappeared. His problems refused to go away, and got bigger and bigger.”

Mr Edwards said, even if jurors believed Mr Singh was “probably” the killer, but could not rule out all other possibilities, they would need to find him not guilty.

“There is pressure to return a result,” Mr Edwards said.

“The case against him is enough to ask the question, but it’s not enough to give you the answer.”

He said a “not guilty” verdict can simply mean the case has not been proved, not necessarily that he is innocent.

“You might think it was “probably him” but probably isn’t enough,” Mr Edwards said.

“There are other possibilities that just can’t be excluded … no matter how uncertain that might make you feel.
“You might have a bad feeling about it all … you might think Mr Singh was a coward, you might think ‘maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t’ but we can’t be sure.”

A jury will retire on Friday to consider whether Rajwinder Singh, on the evidence presented, is guilty or not guilty. Picture: Sketch artist by Julie Haysom

Justice James Henry began his summing up after closing arguments, saying he was “in charge of the law and you (jurors) are in charge of the facts”.

“You are to determine the facts of the case, based on the evidence placed before this courtroom. You must decide what you accept,” Justice Henry said.

Justice Henry said the court had gone to “great lengths’ to choose a jury that would be able to consider the evidence in the trial “coldly, clinically and without regard to emotion”.

“In working towards your unanimous verdict, you must work together, talking through, and testing the pros and cons of any divergent views through tolerant and patient discussion,” Justice Henry said.

“The burden rests on the prosecution. There is no burden on the defendant to prove his innocence.

“Probably guilty is not enough; the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

SUMMING UP:

Justice Henry has told the jury in order to convict Mr Singh they must address five major issues.

1. Is the evidence presented enough to hold up the inference that Rajwinder Singh killed Toyah Cordingley?

2. Is the evidence strong enough to exclude the competing inference consistent with innocence that Marco Heidenreich killed Toyah Cordingley.

3. Is the evidence strong enough to exclude the competing inference consistent with innocence that Remy Fry killed Toyah Cordingley.

4. Is the evidence strong enough to exclude the competing inference consistent with innocence that Evan McCrea killed Toyah Cordingley.

5. Is the evidence strong enough to exclude the competing inference consistent with innocence that someone else other than Rajwinder Singh killed Toyah Cordingley.

Originally published as Rajwinder Singh defence team’s closing arguments in Toyah Cordingley murder trial