The appeal of Swansea couple serving 22 years in jail for the murder of Shane Geoffrey Barker will not be heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal for at least sixteen weeks.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Noelene June Jordan, 69, and her husband Cedric Harper Jordan, 71, lodged appeals in early July about their conviction.
A Supreme Court jury unanimously found them both guilty after a 12-week trial of murdering their ex-son-in-law, Mr Barker, in an ambush at his home on August 2, 2009.
Mrs Jordan's defence counsel Fran McCracken said the appeal would be handled by Launceston barrister James Oxley and Mr Jordan's appeal by Olivia Jenkins.
In a directions hearing Justice Stephen Estcourt ordered that the couple's appeals be joined with an electronic appeal book lodged by respective defence counsel in eight weeks.
The defence counsel would have four weeks to outline its contentions in writing with the crown given a further four weeks after that to respond in a written submission.
Mrs McCracken said the time was needed for Mr Oxley to get his around a vast volume of material from the 12 week trial including transcript estimated to be more than 1000 pages.
Mrs Jordan appeared via video from the Mary Hutchinson Women's Prison and Mr Jordan from the Hobart Reception Prison.
In documents initially lodged Mrs Jordan appealed against that jury verdict saying it was in legal terminology "unsafe and unsatisfactory" while Mr Jordan claimed the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the totality of the evidence.
Both convicted murderers cited as a ground in their appeal a decision by Justice Pearce to allow a video made by Tasmania Police in which an officer attempted to use a crowbar to restore the correct position of the heat shield on the Jordan's Nissan X Trail.
The Crown case was that the couple lied about visiting Mr Barker's home on July 26, 2009 to pick up a crowbar to repair the vehicle. The jury heard that the heat shield had been repaired by DJ Motors in Hobart on July 24.
Justice Pearce excluded the police officer's commentary on the impracticability of using a long crowbar for the task but admitted the video.
The couple also appealed about a decision by Justice Pearce not to discharge two jurors from the trial who had a pre-existing relationship before selected.
"The learned judge erred in fact and in law by failing to discharge two members of the jury when the nature of their pre-existing relationship became apparent to the court," the appeal ground said.
In his sentencing comments Justice Pearce found Mr Barker was shot three times in the back and once in the chest with a .22 rifle fitted with a silencer.
He found that Mr Jordan fired the fatal shots but that Mrs Jordan was equally responsible for the murder.
He said they both drove to Campbell Town together with a common intention to kill Mr Barker.
"Mrs Jordan must have been aware of the firearm in the car," he said.
"After the crime they told many jointly concocted lies aimed at concealing their role in the crime."
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner
Nick Clark
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for The Examiner. My journalism career has clicked over 34 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for The Examiner. My journalism career has clicked over 34 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
