Lawyers for convicted Tas couple say conviction was ‘unsafe and unsatisfactory’

A couple convicted of the murder of their former son-in-law have faced court on Monday to appeal their 2023 sentence. What the court heard.

Defence lawyer Patrick Wilson, left, leaves court after the appeal hearing. Picture: Linda Higginson

An East Coast husband and wife who were last year jailed for the shooting murder of their former son-in-law in Campbelltown in 2009 have appeared together in a Hobart courtroom to appeal their convictions.

Swansea couple Cedric Harper Jordan, 72, and Noelene June Jordan, 70, were sentenced to a maximum 22 years’ imprisonment after a Launceston jury found them guilty of killing 36-year-old Shane Geoffrey Barker during an ambush outside his home.

On Monday in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the couple sat side by side to hear defence lawyers present submissions to Chief Justice Chris Shanahan, Justice Stephen Estcourt, and Justice Kate Cuthbertson.

Throughout the day-long hearing, the couple spoke with each other at regular intervals, with Mr Jordan at one point passing a note to his legal team.

A recent private photo of murder victim, Campbell Town man Shane Geoffrey Barker (36)

Fran McCracken, for Mrs Jordan, told the court her client was appealing her convictions on the grounds the jury’s verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory in all the circumstances; that “demonstration” evidence presented during the trial had been unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, and that an existing relationship between two members of the jury panel could have impacted its deliberations.

Ms McCracken said that by returning a guilty verdict, the jury had incorrectly dismissed the possibility that someone other than the Jordans had been responsible for killing Mr Barker.

“There was an alternative theory that could not be disproved by evidence and that ought to have left a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors on the case,” Mrs Jordan’s lawyer said.

Ms McCracken also argued that a relationship discovered between two members of the extended 14-person jury panel may have jeopardised its ability to return a true verdict, despite one partner being a “reserve” who did not take part in the final deliberations.

Mr Jordan’s defence counsel, Patrick Wilson, said it could not be ruled out that spent bullet cartridges found in an alleyway near Mr Barker’s home had been left by someone other than his client.

Mr Wilson also submitted that the jury should have received a direction from the trial judge about possible explanations for the accused couple’s conduct and demeanour following the fatal incident, which the Crown had suggested reflected a guilty conscience.

However, Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions, Daryl Coates SC, told the court that there was an “overwhelming” circumstantial case linking the Jordans to Mr Barker’s murder, saying the killing was clearly pre-planned.

“The appellants had a strong motive, which was strengthened by the fact that they lied about the motive,” Mr Coates said.

“The appellants had an opportunity, that was strengthened by the fact they lied about the opportunity.”

Cedric Harper Jordan and Noelene June Jordan (red jacket) leave the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Launceston. Picture: Patrick Gee

Mr Coates said the Jordans had been “ballistically linked” to the spent .22 cartridges found near the crime scene through the discovery of identical ammunition kept at their Swansea home, and that the couple had access to an unregistered pump-action rifle which they subsequently denied knowledge of.

Mr Coates said that despite defence arguing that long-standing tensions between the Jordans and their former son-in-law had been resolved at the time of his death, this was far from the truth, with their daughter voicing ongoing concerns about her ex-husband’s alleged mistreatment of their child.

Crown Prosecutor, Madeleine Figg, told the court that the trial judge had been notified about the two jurors in the Launceston case approximately one week into proceeding last year, and had gone on to make factual findings about their ability to be impartial on the case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reserved its decision.