Lynn’s defence is also arguing the killer’s sentence was “manifestly excessive”.
Loading
Hamill contested Lynn’s arguments for resentencing, and argued Lynn’s victim was a 73-year-old stranger who posed no threat to him. The prosecutor said Lynn also used an inherently deadly weapon, a shotgun, and that the removal of the bodies from the valley, before he later returned to burn them at a second location, was also a relevant consideration.
“It’s hard not to have strong adverse visceral reaction to what Mr Lynn did with respect to the bodies,” Priest said.
“He denied Mrs Clay any dignity in death and Mr Hill. Speaking for myself, I regard what he did with the bodies as absolutely despicable, but one must still endeavour to approach that very serious factor objectively and not be motivated by ones subjective reaction.”
Earlier, defence barrister Dermot Dann, KC, said prosecutors in the 2024 murder trial broke the rules that govern fair conduct of criminal trials “so thick and fast”, he was unable to keep up. In total, the trial judge noted 17 breaches.
These breaches, Dann argued, might have led the Supreme Court jury down an “impermissible pathway” in arriving at an unsafe guilty verdict over Clay’s death.
Lynn was sentenced to 32 years in jail, with a non-parole period of 24 years by Justice Michael Croucher, who said the murder was violent, brutal and horrific.
Justices Karin Emerton, Peter Kidd and Priest will hand down a decision on the appeal at a later date.
Read the full article here
