Andrew L. Urban.
The High Court in Canberra adjourned for just four minutes before resuming at 2.45pm on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, with a unanimous decision that Steven Fennell’s appeal against his murder conviction should be allowed. A verdict of acquittal was entered. “I was in my cell about to eat my yoghurt when prison officers came to the door and said, `you’re going’,” he told The Courier-Mail.
Steven Fennell, 60, returned home for the first time in more than six years on Thursday, following the ruling that a jury’s guilty verdict was unreasonable, as The Australian’s David Murray reported on September 12, 2019. Reasons will be delivered later.
Mr Fennell was given a life sentence in 2016 for the murder of 85-year-old Liselotte Watson on Macleay Island in Moreton Bay.
Steven Fennell with his wife Helen and son Adam
“I’ve said all along I don’t believe anybody intended to kill Mrs Watson, I believe it was a bungled burglary,” he said after rejoining his wife Helen and son Adam.
“I was an easy, simple target. I gambled – I know Mrs Watson – I must have done it.”
Ms Watson was bludgeoned to death in her home in November 2012 and Mr Fennell had been in custody since his arrest in March 2013.
Her granddaughter, Emma Watson, on Thursday thanked police “for their relentless effort and dedication”.
“We have felt nothing but unwavering support and compassion from the entire QPS team for years now and are forever grateful.”
Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts said Mr Fennell could sue the state but his prospects of success were low as a jury had convicted him and the verdict was initially upheld by the Queensland Court of Appeal.
Mr Fennell’s barrister, Saul Holt QC, told the court there was a “genuine prospect that an innocent person has been convicted”.
Most of the strands of the prosecution case were “either gossamer thin or in truth non existent in terms of their evidential weight” or stemmed from Mr Fennell’s close association with Ms Watson.
In lengthy submissions, Mr Holt said the suggestion Mr Fennell stole $5,000 from Ms Watson by altering a number on a withdrawal slip, and then killed her because she was going to find out, was “not sustainable”.
Mr Fennell withdrew money on Ms Watson’s behalf on four previous occasions, and on two of those the bank called Ms Watson to confirm he was authorised to do so.
Ms Watson’s toiletries bag, containing her banking documents, and her TransLink wallet and purse were found near a hammer in a mangroves and tidal area.
An island resident gave evidence he had lent the distinctive hammer to Mr Fennell. Ms Watson’s injuries were consistent with being hit by a hammer.
But Mr Holt said there were “blindingly obvious” problems with the hammer’s identification and nothing else directly linked it to the crime.
“This is just a hammer. There is nothing special about it.”
An alternative scenario was someone else knew Ms Watson held large quantities of cash, was disturbed by her presence while attempting to steal from her, then killed her and left.
Mr Fennell had opportunity only in the sense he didn’t have an alibi at times during the 31 hours between Ms Watson being last seen alive and her body being discovered, he said.
“It is really no more than `he could have done it’.”
Mr Fennell delivered pamphlets in a ute and on a postie bike on Macleay and other islands. He visited Ms Watson up to twice a day to do her shopping, banking and assist around the house.
There was evidence Mr Fennell was on his home computer when prosecutors suggested he was at Ms Watson’s house cleaning up after the murder, he said.
“It was well known that she had told lots of people that she had cash in the house. Regrettably, she was a target.”
Queensland police said in a statement that “any matters relating to yesterday’s decision by the High Court should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions”.
“Police encourage any person with new information to come forward. Any new information provided will be investigated thoroughly.” The DPP declined to comment.
So many errors in this case.
I am a friend of Mr Fennell and I got to read some witness statements prior to trial.
I was at the trial, I watched the jury looking for indications via body language of any juror agreeing or rejecting comments by either side.
Almost all in the jury box were consistently still. However at times one woman in front of the jury box (who I suspect was the foreperson) would nod her head enthusiastically when the prosecutor spoke.
When Mr Fennell’s barrister (Adrian Donaldson ) spoke either to challenge the prosecutions assertions or to cross – examine a police witness her head would again bob, but this time side to side.
From my vantage point I can say that I never saw that woman bob “Agreeing” with the defence not once – not even when the police handwriting expert was excused and not invited back to correct some appalling errors of fact.
I again never saw that woman’s head bob “Agreeing” with the defence – not even when the police DNA expert was forced to concede that no relevant DNA that came from Mr Fennell. On the topic of DNA – when the prosecutor suggested “if not from Mr Fennell then who” the head bobbing from the same juror was most rapid; eager to agree with a non-fact or pure speculation but a damaging accusation by Mr Cash the prosecutor all the same.
Perhaps the most egregious occasion of rapid fire head bobbing was when the Matheson’s gave contradictory evidence. This jury person clearly liked the evidence regardless of the fact it was pure contradiction. Contradiction of previous statements made by each; and contradiction with each other and with *common sense.
It is difficult to see someone so accepting of the prosecutors statements that I (entirely speculatively) presume this jury person was enthusiastic for a conviction and would have been forceful for a conviction in jury deliberations.
There were other errors made at trial by the defence table – basic errors. I refer to the material in the witness statement. For instance that of Mr Matheson. Basic courtroom legal strategy for the defence is to have Mr Matheson agree that his previous statements made in several police statements are correct- then list each and every non truth.
The jury swings on credibility; and Mr & Mrs Matheson’s were not tested a terrible error by the defence. Steven later told me that as Mr Matheson entered the courtroom in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank and support person in tow Gatenby and Donaldson took the decision not to challenge Mr Matheson in case he should have an episode on the stand. You don’t see a wheelchair in a court transcript!!
Now; I have to say non truth, because people it seems get upset calling a liar a liar. Mr Matheson’s statement contained both simple errors (lies) about time and dates which he contradicted in court.
Mr Matheson’s statements contained more complex (lies) about facts, his facts which when checked were entirely false.
The fact that Mr Gatenby (Steven’s lawyer) or Mr Donaldson (Steven’s barrister) did not attacked Mr Matheson’s lies one at a time was piss poor lawyering by any standard.
Failure to challenge Mr Matheson’s statements at trial caused real harm because you are not permitted to raise new facts on appeal – unless those facts you want to raise were not available at trial….. and they were available.
When Steven’s case for compensation is settled – win or lose I hope Steven puts a book(s) or podcast out.
*common sense – that is a reference to the High Court saying that the evidence of the hammer from the Matheson’s was barely admissible. That is Judge speak about the trail judge admitting it- it was shit and should not have been allowed.
Thanks for this thought provoking comment.
This case typifies what can happen when police prematurely determine the guilt of a person based on a set of dubious bias internal police statistics.
In the words of Saul Holt QC for Mr Fennell at par 130 he says”…….Mr Fennell is focused on a far too earlier stage and the evidence is seen constantly through the lens of an attempt to put together a case which otherwise does not exist coherently.” In essence find stuff to convict Fennell because we believe he done it! As exemplified in the High Court thinking he done it and having some proof are not same thing at all!
While it is easy (and correct) to point the finger at police the jury in this matter ignored the opportunity evidence that demonstrated Mr FENNELL could not have committed the crime on the police timetable.
Motive was lacking as was a decent defence lawyer and barrister.
As to method; well here is the rub at trial the prosecution and judge said to the jury that a lot hinged on the credibility of the evidence of Mr & Mrs Matheson. However at the H.C.A Mr Byrne QC for the crown attempted to play down the importance of the identification of the hammer from Mr & Mrs Matheson. I expect because when looked at without emotion the claims were no better than someone claiming that an Alien got me pregnant.
The conduct by the Appeals court is a stupid as it gets – error after error compounded by the unanimous decision inferring all 3 were in agreement thus all three fell asleep.
Bill. One very important – not mentioned in your detailed description is the possibility of a classic Queensland stacked jury . All I need now is for some defender of the system to claim that the jury selection is not as manipulative and dishonest as the Police Prosecutors screenplay . Of course, the half-witted Appeals Court has been mentioned, but without sufficient condemnation. (and insult) Can the dear reader then honestly think that these scurelous conviction seekers dont stack juries – the method used in Queensland has been described in detail – August 1993 inquiry eg. a long and complicated reading of gobbledygook. The most “successful” police prosecutors are famous (notorious) for bamboozling even non-stacked juries with mountains of irrelevant innuendo and flexible forensics – spanners and screw drivers from the judge – thankyou says Sue –
“prosecutors are famous (notorious) for bamboozling even non-stacked juries with mountains of irrelevant innuendo” rings a bell ! See Xie.
Heinrich. The jury system has issues, and I do not disagree with your comments; however I posit that the chances are far greater that a slick prosecutor will confuses a jury. Let me give you of an example one right now.
The case of Mr Fennell’s is a classic case of a jury that had NO understanding of DNA evidence. The prosecutor had no DNA evidence against Mr Fennell, none not a jot.
The prosecutor’s tactic was simple but highly effective.
The prosecutor for days bombarded the jury with DNA scientist, expert blood analyst experts and other police experts pratting on about this and that. The prosecutor made all sorts of technical sounding stuff seem important, even bring out some graphs. Graphs that demonstrated that there was not one single piece of incriminating DNA pointing to Mr Fennell.
In essence what the prosecutor did was simply parade their experts out in front of the jury who went back into the jury room and came to the conclusion that while on the surface nothing appeared to incriminate Mr Fennell the prosecutor must have had a reason for bringing in all these experts that spoke for days ergo we the jury must have missed the stuff that was important.
And that’s how you confuse a jury!!!
There are so many areas where the jury got this wrong that it could hardly be constrained in a book.
I will only provide an overview because to do otherwise would drain my brain.
So in short the Jury convicted after:-
1. The timeline demonstrated that Steven could not have been where police said he was. I refer to the HCA and the evidence Mr & Mrs Vaney. Then there is the evidence of the CCTV showing Steven at the Pub and later CCTV footage at Spar during the time alleged he committed the murder. The timeline from his computer has him at the computer.
2.The handwriting expert was excused and not invited back to clarify clearly wrong assertions.
3. The DNA evidence pointed to others with zero incriminating DNA attributed to Steven.
4. The forensic accountant – well this requires a least one book but in essence her math did not demonstrate a lack of funds as was pointed out in the HCA.
5. A person of interest with DNA on the bag found in the bay died before trial a point barely mentioned.
6. Mr & Mrs Matheson gave conflicting evidence about everything including but not limited to the timeline on the hammer that they claim was theirs.
There are many more points but it is clear that the jury ignored the facts and went with the prosecutions assertion of who else could have done it!
Must have been the same jury that convicted Robert Xie of the Lin family murders in contradiction of evidence … see some of this mess at the Robert Xie pages (links at right of any page on this blog)
Ralph. OMG ! As they say in the USA.
Can you even begin to imagine the
dog poo from “noddy foreperson” in the
jury room. It would be surprising if she didn’t oblige her masters by feeding extra forbidden codswollop to the naive
jurors .
Andrew, I was reading a little while ago in the ever accurate and truthful Brisbane Courier mail that Mr Fennell intends to sue the Police and QLD government for either 10.5m or 5.5m.
The hard copy newspaper had 10.5m as did the original digital post which was later edited to 5.5m.
I note that Mr Fennell is not directly suing for wrongful imprisonment, which as a subject of a claim fail notoriously. Mr Fennell and his legal team appear to have learnt from past failed attempts at compensation claims and have elected another legal route.
I also found this radio article about the case:
https://gnechlawyers.com/afternoons-on-4bc-the-extraordinary-case-of-steven-fennell/
Andrew, is there any update in this matter that you can/will follow up on?
I have no further info on the matter.
Rejected on legal grounds
Gail,
I for one would be interested in your opinion – could you perhaps frame it so that it is not rejected?
Healthy debate can and often exposes errors in initial or not completely informed assessments. Having to resubmit a past position also allows the opportunity to revisit any unnoticed errors in logic. Additionally, there may be a bias that we didn’t know we had. I for one am extremely bias with my opinion on pineapple …….should it go on a pizza or not opinions are healthy.
Bill Jones
News Flash From The Murdock Media–No No Not about the Yoghurt ( fascinating as that subject is) The DDP has torn out his feathers– what was a ” Simple easy target” (Steve Fennell) has bit him on his FAT BUM — even a planted hammer was the wrong one–Scott Austic Screen Play–Police relentlessly enthusiastically Planted knife–“The Police-they do a fine job–some of them get over excited”- The call of the feather ?
Thanked Police for ” Their Relentless Effort and Dedication”—“The Jury GOT it WRONG”–SAY NO MORE–THE
WRONGFUL CONVICTION WAS THE JURIES FAULT ! NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE CLEVER VOMIT SCREEN PLAY ? The relentless effort put him in prison and the dedication kept him there– THE relentless dedicated Policeymens pursued-an obviously Innocent man koz they could se a clever screenplay would win a feather in the cao- as a matter of interest– are the little dedicated relentless ones now required to remove the feathers ?– No punishment for the wicked ? The relentless playwrites !
WHY are we fed this stupid dogs vomit ? — dumbing us down with Codswallop about someone eating their yoghurt– what flavour ?–NEVER got yoghurt in mytime- just a bashing in the Chief Warders office—maybe the Criminal Queensland Police Commissioner Lewis got yoghurt in his holiday retreat ? ( low fat ?) We need more detail about the yoghurt–One should spend a little more reading time–Graham Stafford can give a disgusting description of the excreta ( faeces) added to his tuckeroo ! Did the screws add it to his yoghurt–oops he fell over ! ” The Jury GOT it wrong”- The Jury DIDN’T get it wrong ! The JURY was fed the usual lying -clever- twisting- screenplay garbage by professional LYING mongrels– the jury members are pure amateurs–except in Queensland maybe the prosecution appointed Professional Jury Foreman–By the way–DON’T bloody tell us what the jury thought ! It’s an overall vomit package screen play fed to them by professional Liars with NO MORAL COMPASS ! Was the actual guilty person a Police Friend–as in the Graham Stafford Case ?–Makes ya a proud Queenslander–Police pursue the innocent to protect the guilty MATE ! In the case of the young mother whose baby was eaten by a dog– the Policeymens were protecting the poor little doggy woggy ? In view of the FACT that it took the ILLUSTRIOUS Western Australian “JUSTICE SYSTEM” 45 YEARS to ADMIT that Darryl Beamish was innocent– done over by the Magnificent future WA Police Commissioner- was awarded $450,000.–Lewis’s yoghurt would cost more than that ! By Internationally Signed Agreement the Feds are required to provide Justice for Australian Citizens– $ 1million per year is an appropriate compensation for wrongful conviction– with further amounts when it can be shown that the DEAR POLICEYMENS planted evidence–concealed evidence- wrote a Complete Fictional Screenplay–( Worthy of HOLLYWOOD) then presented that Screenplay to a Jury of Amateurs ( except for the jury foreman of course ). That’s the amount that should be set–$ 1 million per year plus Yoghurt Allowance– not negotiable– SET IN LAW !
This is a clear case of police focusing on this man because he had criminal history. Not only does the prosecution evidence not come close to what should have been a conviction it is clear that the jury thought that because of his gambling that was a motive. It transpired that Mr Fennell was in fact a rare punter who was according to the forensic accountants records was ahead some $13,000 in the 2 years that it was reviewed by the police forensic accountant. Some one should assist this man to sue for wrongful imprisonment.