Court of Appeal details reasons behind quashing of Greg Lynn’s murder conviction

12 minutes agoThu 11 Dec 2025 at 6:42am

Greg Lynn will face a retrial after his murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on Thursday. (ABC News: Anita Lester)

The Court of Appeal has overturned the murder conviction of former Jetstar pilot Greg Lynn, arguing missteps from the prosecution during his high-profile trial effected a "substantial miscarriage of justice".

Mr Lynn was last year sentenced to 32 years behind bars after a jury convicted him of the murder of Carol Clay in Victoria’s High Country in March 2020, but he was acquitted of the murder of her companion, Russell Hill.

The 59-year-old has always maintained his innocence, arguing the pair’s deaths were tragic accidents set in motion by separate struggles over a knife and a gun.

On Thursday, Court of Appeal justices Karin Emerton, Phillip Priest and Peter Kidd ruled the conviction should be set aside with Mr Lynn to face a new trial.

Carol Clay and Russell Hill both died at a remote campsite where Greg Lynn was also camping in 2020. (Supplied)

"Unhappily, we have concluded that the conduct of prosecuting counsel so compromised the fairness of the applicant’s trial that a substantial miscarriage of justice resulted," the appeal judges wrote in a 59-page judgment.

"In those circumstances, the applicant’s conviction for murdering Mrs Clay cannot be permitted to stand."

Here are the major takeaways from the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Major breaches of legal fairness rules

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown repeatedly failed the abide by the rules of conduct that govern how a prosecution should act during a trial.

It found that Crown prosecutor Daniel Porceddu made several allegations in his closing address that he never put to Mr Lynn while he was giving evidence, denying him the opportunity to respond to them.

As Justice Michael Croucher told jurors in the double-murder trial, had those propositions been put to Mr Lynn, he "may well have been able to respond in a powerful and convincing way".

Among the judgment’s examples was an allegation made during Mr Porceddu’s closing address that Mr Lynn had changed his story with respect to a guy rope that prosecutors argued would have conflicted with his account of the struggle with Mr Hill.

While the issue of the guy rope was put to Mr Lynn during his time in the witness stand, the allegation that he had changed his story after giving an initial police interview was "at no point put to Mr Lynn", the judgment said.

The alleged presence of a thin rope tied to Russell Hill’s vehicle featured as part of the prosecution’s case. (Supplied: Supreme Court of Victoria)

The judgment also drew attention to a tendency of the prosecution to reverse the onus of proof during the trial, which at one point drew admonishment from the presiding judge:

**DEFENCE COUNSEL: **It’s just outrageous that it’s going on time and time again, without any regard for those principles. I will take instructions over lunch, but we’re seriously, seriously concerned about what’s going on.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. I understand. Mr [Prosecutor].

PROSECUTOR: I understand the issue, Your Honour.

DEFENCE COUNSEL: Well, do something about it.

HIS HONOUR: If you understand it, stick to the rules.

But the appeal court concluded the prosecution did not "stick to the rules".

The repeated misconduct was a major factor in the appeal being granted.

**"**Regrettably, we have concluded that the conduct of prosecuting counsel in the present case resulted in an unfair trial," the judgment said.

Issues raised over two expert witnesses

The appeal lodged by Mr Lynn’s team also took issue with the prosecution’s handling of two expert witnesses during the trial.

The first, Leading Senior Constable Paul Griffiths, was a firearm and toolmark examiner attached to the Ballistics Unit of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre (VPFSC).

Senior Constable Griffiths was called to give evidence on bullet trajectory tests he conducted based on the accused’s account that Ms Clay died when she was accidentally shot during the campsite melee.

But prosecutors later told the jury the testing, which included a result that was favourable to Mr Lynn’s account, was "flawed" — despite not putting this to Constable Griffiths in re-examination.

The prosecution did not ask a single question about the trajectory experiments, the judgment said, before defence counsel Dermot Dann KC in cross-examination led Constable Griffiths to agree that one of the test results was consistent with Mr Lynn’s account.

"[I]t needs to be understood that the unfairness engendered by what prosecuting counsel did was not just to the witness, LSC Griffiths, but flowed into and enveloped the defence case," the judgment said.

Victoria Police Leading Senior Constable Paul Griffiths was called to give evidence on bullet trajectory tests he conducted. (AAP Image: James Ross)

The second lot of evidence defence lawyers took issue with came from Mark Gellatly, a forensic officer attached to the Biological Services Group at the VPFSC.

After Mr Gellatly was asked by the prosecution about an apparent vacuum effect in gun barrels fired at close range, the defence established that none of that material was in a statement it had received, and Mr Gellatly was not an expert in that area.

However, it argued during an appeal hearing that "irreparable damage" had already been done to their case, as the vacuum theory may have stayed in the minds of the jury despite being dismissed.

But the appeal bench found the reference to the vacuum theory could not have caused a substantial miscarriage of justice alone — in part because "the defence counsel decimated it".

Court notes defence did not call for mistrial

Despite discussions that it might have sought to discharge the jury due to the prosecution’s conduct during the trial, the defence for Mr Lynn ultimately opted not to do so.

The Court of Appeal said it weighed up the defence’s decision, and that it was a factor in determining whether there had been a miscarriage of justice or not.

In its submission, the defence argued that discharging the jury would mean the prosecution would have another chance to cross-examine Mr Lynn, and argued it would be "inconsistent with concepts of fairness and justice" given the prosecution’s conduct in the trial.

In response, the Crown said there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice and that the defence had instead taken "tactical advantage of the prosecution’s asserted failures".

The appeal court concluded the prosecution’s conduct had placed defence counsel in "an unenviable position" and forced them to choose between two outcomes.

"Had [the defence] applied for a discharge and had it been granted, the prosecution at any retrial would have the potential to repair its case on the charge of murdering Mr Hill," the judgment, which argued the prosecution failed to present a case concerning Mr Hill’s murder, said.

"And by not seeking a discharge of the jury, the prejudice to the defence case infected the charge of murdering Mrs Clay."

The Court of Appeal found that ultimately the defence’s failure to seek a discharge of the jury did not necessarily mean the trial was not unfair.

Two other appeal grounds dismissed

While the first two of the four appeal grounds were upheld, the final two were not.

In those points, the defence had submitted that the jury "travelled down an impermissible pathway in arriving at their guilty verdict", and that the verdict itself was "unsafe and unsatisfactory".

Before the trial and during its opening address, the prosecution said that neither the circumstances nor the motive behind the two killings were known.

But towards the end of the prosecution case, Mr Porceddu contended that Ms Clay was murdered because she witnessed the death of Mr Hill — a suggestion the Court of Appeal said was seemingly "plucked from thin air".

"It is clear that the present case involved an absence of proven motive, rather than a proven absence of motive," the judgment said.

Mr Lynn’s legal team argued there was a risk the jury arrived at a verdict for the charge of murdering Ms Clay by resorting to the asserted motive, despite the judge’s directions that there was no evidence of any motive.

But the appeal bench concluded the jury did follow those directions, and there was a pathway to a guilty verdict available irrespective of motive.

"There was a path to conviction on [Carol Clay’s murder] which did not rely on the prosecution establishing motive," the judgment said.

"It is impossible to conclude that the jury did not travel that path."

The defence had also appealed on the grounds that the jury had not been in a position to reject Mr Lynn’s version of events.

His legal team argued much of Mr Lynn’s account was supported by forensic evidence, and that the defence had failed to present contrary evidence to parts of his account, such as the order of the deaths.

But the appeal bench concluded that none of the matters raised by the defence dictated that the original guilty verdict was unreasonable.

New trial not compromised by first trial, judges say

The Court of Appeal said Mr Lynn had made a written submission requesting that there be no retrial if his conviction was quashed, arguing "the fairness of any future retrial has been placed in grave jeopardy".

In addition to the past and possible future conduct of the Crown, Mr Lynn claimed that the reporting of "inadmissible and prejudicial material" following his initial guilty verdict would affect the fairness of a future trial.

But the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of holding a fresh, fair trial in the case, calling murder "the most serious crime on the criminal calendar", and acknowledging the public interest in ensuring a fair trial was held for such serious alleged wrongdoing.

It said that despite the improper conduct during the initial trial of Greg Lynn, subsequent trials should not be affected by past failures.

"There is no reason to think that the fundamental unfairness which permeated the first trial will carry over to the new trial," the judgment said.

"The failures on the part of the Crown — while regrettable — are not of a magnitude or nature which should preclude a retrial."

It said any arguments Mr Lynn’s defence team may have regarding the unfairness of the new trial or prejudicial publicity will be dealt with in the future by the yet-to-be-determined judge of the new trial.