COLD CASE: Jay Brogden murder matters push ahead

A lawyer for one of the men charged over the 21 year old’s disappearance may apply to question witnesses.

Police are hoping the creation of a billboard on the Bruce Highway at Cannonvale will help solve the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Jay Brogden in 2007.

A LAWYER for one of the two men charged with the cold case murder of Jay Brogden may apply to cross examine witnesses as the case moves to the Supreme Court.

Gavin Philip Parnell allegedly murdered Mr Brogden, with co-accused Braddon Charles Peter Butler, more than 10 years ago at Airlie Beach.

Mr Brogden, 21, was last seen at Cannonvale on April 21, 2007 – his body has never been found.

Jay Brogden, 21, vanished in Cannonvale on April 21, 2007.

Matters were briefly mentioned in Mackay Magistrates Court, where Mr Parnell appeared via video link.

The case had initially been listed for a registry committal to Mackay Supreme Court but his solicitor Andrew Bale, who had recently taken carriage of the case, said he would need time to read through the police case files.

“In particular those things that are said to be admissions with a view to questioning whether an application for cross examination of some of those witnesses to whom those alleged admissions are made,” Mr Bale said.

The mystery of what happened to Mr Brogden has spanned 12 years with detectives even digging up a property in the region as part of the suspected homicide investigation.

Jay Brogden crime scene at Mazlin Street property in Airlie Beach. Pic Georgia Simpson

And a $250,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the person or persons responsible for Mr Brogden’s disappearance remains.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Sabine Scott said she expected to be able to post the brief of evidence to Mr Bale in the “not too distant future”.

Sgt Scott said this case should remain with those of Mr Butler “because he was also charged with … the offence of murder” in relation to this matter.

The case was adjourned to August 3 for mention. The court heard at the moment the workload was being reduced to “absolutely essential matters” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Originally published as