Convicted double-murderer Mark Lundy back before courts, fighting to clear name

Massey University’s Chris Gallivan explains to Breakfast what the convicted double-murderer’s lawyers will be arguing today.

Convicted double-murderer Mark Lundy is back before the courts today in a last-ditch attempt to clear his name.

His lawyer Jonathan Eaton QC will argue in the country's highest court that the Court of Appeal was wrong to rule there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice at his second trial.

The case is being heard by the Supreme Court today before five judges.

Today marks almost 19 years to the day since Lundy's wife Christine and daughter Amber were found bludgeoned to death in their Palmerston North home. Lundy was convicted in 2002 for the murders, nearly two years after the killings and again at the retrial in 2015.

At the retrial, the prosecution's case relied on two methods of identifying the make-up of stains on a polo shirt found in Lundy's car, which Lundy admitted to wearing on the night of the murders.

He’s most of the way through a 20-year non-parole sentence for murdering his wife and daughter in 2000.

ONN 1 News at 6 promo image


Immunohistochemistry (IHC) evidence was used to determine the presence of brain or spinal cord tissue from the central nervous system, while messenger RNA (mRNA) evidence was used to argue that the brain or spinal cord tissue was more likely to come from a human than animal.

Lundy's lawyers disputed the use of this evidence in the Court of Appeal, which questioned the reliability of the mRNA evidence and found that it should not have been used at the retrial. However the Court still ruled that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, using a proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act which states it can do that despite finding the evidence wrongly admitted at trial.

Lundy was jailed for killing his wife and daughter in a 2002 trial, and a 2015 retrial also found him guilty.

In applying the proviso, the Court of Appeal was left sure of Lundy’s guilt and considered he received a fair trial.

Eaton will today argue the Court of Appeal's use of the proviso and assessment of inevitable guilt was flawed, again in hope of overturning Lundy's convictions for murder.

Had Lundy not appealed the convictions and sentence from his first trial in 2002, he would be eligible for parole this year. Lundy was originally sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17-year non-parole period in 2002. The non-parole period was increased to 20 years following his appeal against his conviction to the Court of Appeal.

SHARE ME