THE family of the victims of Wedderburn triple murderer Ian Francis Jamieson say his appeal against his murder conviction has made it difficult to be able to fully move on from the deaths.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Appeal documents were lodged in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, with Jamieson’s defence claiming he should have been able to change his plea to not guilty to the murder of Greg Holmes.
Defence counsel John Desmond said Jamieson, 66, was not of clear mind when he plead guilty, and his inability to change his plea meant he could not run his defence – centred on self-defence, and a lack of murderous intent.
Mr Desmond said it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Maree St Clair, the older sister of Mr Holmes and daughter of third murder victim Mary Lockhart, said the family respected Jamieson’s legal right to appeal, but it was difficult to move on from the crime.
“You feel like you’re moving forward, then you go back a few spaces,” she said.
“We’re just going along with the legal system now, and respecting the process.”
Jamieson’s legal team is continuing to claim Mr Holmes – the first murder victim – attacked Jamieson with a syringe, and he acted in self-defence.
Mr Desmond alleges the syringe was “possibly laden with some toxic/illicit drug”.
It was alleged Jamieson stabbed Holmes 25 times, and then proceeded to shoot and kill Mr Holmes’ mother Mary Lockhart, 75, and stepfather Peter Lockhart, 78, on their property on the other side of Logan-Wedderburn Road south of Wedderburn on October 22, 2014.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the Lockhart murders, and 25 years for the Holmes murder, with a 30-year non-parole period.
Mr Desmond argued Jamieson was not of sound mind when he pleaded guilty to the Holmes murder on April 5 last year, as he was suffering from “various cognitive deficits”.
In the appeal writ, Mr Desmond said Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth had not properly considered the legitimacy of Jamieson’s defence.
“If a jury accepted the reasonable possibility that Holmes came at the accused with a syringe, then it would be open for a jury to entertain at least for the first stab wound/s the accused was entitled to defend himself,” he wrote.
“No finding was made by Her Honour the applicant did not possess a viable defence, and in that regard the trial judge fell into error.”
In her sentencing remarks, Justice Hollingworth described the syringe defence as a “complete fabrication”. The court heard police could not find evidence of a syringe at the crime scene.
Public prosecutor John Cain, writing in response to the appeal writ, said Justice Hollingworth did not fail to have proper regard for the viability of the defence.
“There is… no substance in the suggestion that the applicant was denied procedural fairness,” he wrote.
“It is plain that at the hearing of the application counsel for the prosecution’s case was that the applicant’s defence was fabricated.
“It could come as no surprise to the applicant that the judge might have accepted that submission.”
Mr Cain described as “speculative” the evidence that Jamieson was suffering cognitive deficiencies during the plea hearings, and that there was no evidence that he was unable to “freely decide to plead guilty”.
Jamieson had 28 days to appeal the sentence, but missed the deadline and was granted an extension of time.
Three justices of the Court of Appeal will determine at a later date whether the appeal can continue.