Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants.
Speaker 2: It was absolute shambles, to tell you the truth, just
Speaker 2: absolutely really honored.
Speaker 3: Blood on his clothing.
Speaker 1: The day after the alleged at top a.
Speaker 3: Show a mud Bank and the Fit through a River.
Speaker 2: Basically, I think most of the people are used to
Speaker 2: me are good people.
Speaker 3: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 3: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 4: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pull back the
Speaker 4: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 4: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 4: Amy Maguire.
Speaker 3: And I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign
Speaker 3: Prisoner Support Service. And a warning this series contains the
Speaker 3: names of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might
Speaker 3: upset some listeners.
Speaker 4: Welcome to episode twenty three of Curtain, the Podcast. And
Speaker 4: as we were recording this week's episode, exciting news came
Speaker 4: in from Western Australia. An Aboriginal man named Jane Gibson
Speaker 4: given a seven and a half year sentence for manslaughter
Speaker 4: over the death of a white man just had his
Speaker 4: conviction quashed. Josh Warnecki was found dead on the side
Speaker 4: of a road and broom seven years ago. Mister Gibson,
Speaker 4: who was from a remote Western desert community, was sentenced
Speaker 4: in twenty fourteen after pleading guilty to the unlawful killing
Speaker 4: of mister Warnecki, but.
Speaker 2: On Wednesday, the Western Australian Court of Appeal quashed that conviction.
Speaker 2: Mister Gibson only speaks limited English and his first language
Speaker 2: is pintubby. Witnesses also testified that he'd had a cognitive
Speaker 2: impairment and could potentially have feed alcohol spectrum disorder known
Speaker 2: to many as FAZD. Mister Gibson has already served four
Speaker 2: years for a crime he did do. His story has
Speaker 2: been widely covered in the media this week.
Speaker 4: Now to consider this, Kevin Henry or Curtin has been
Speaker 4: locked up for over a quarter of a century for
Speaker 4: a crime he did not do. Like mister Gibson, his
Speaker 4: confession is also false will. Mister Gibson was not given
Speaker 4: adequate translation to understand the complicated court processes and instructions.
Speaker 4: Kevin Henry did not even have a lawyer present. He
Speaker 4: was forced to confess while intoxicated.
Speaker 2: Now, throughout this podcast series, we've gone through the transcripts
Speaker 2: of Kevin Henry's trial in exhaustive detail. We've raised doubt
Speaker 2: not only on witness statements, but also on the title records,
Speaker 2: the forensics, and how the police conducted their investigation. We
Speaker 2: weren't the first to raise that doubt.
Speaker 4: Now, one of the other bits of listener feedback we've
Speaker 4: received has been this, given all this doubt, how did
Speaker 4: the jury convict Kevin Henry?
Speaker 2: So this week we're going to read to you the
Speaker 2: instructions that were given to the jury by the trial
Speaker 2: judge in Kevin Henry's case. This will help you put
Speaker 2: yourselves in the position of the jury. You've heard as
Speaker 2: much evidence as those who sat in judgment on Kevin Henry.
Speaker 2: In fact, you've been given the benefit of much more detail.
Speaker 2: But listening to what the judge says and his summation,
Speaker 2: you can decide for yourself whether you would find Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a
Speaker 5: speculative imaginary are forced doubt. A reasonable doubt as to
Speaker 5: the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence
Speaker 5: conflict and the evidence are the lack of evidence. If
Speaker 5: you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant
Speaker 5: not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should
Speaker 5: find it defending guilt.
Speaker 1: That was the judge in Brendan Butler's trial shown in
Speaker 1: the award winning documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning. And
Speaker 1: as we've discussed previously in this podcast, if you haven't
Speaker 1: seen that documentary, it will help you understand Kevin Henry's case.
Speaker 2: Now, what you just heard is a definition of reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: Here's the judge in Kevin Henry's trial describing to the
Speaker 2: jury the same principle as they heard it. The standard
Speaker 2: to which the crown must prove the charge before you
Speaker 2: can find any of the accused guilty of any of
Speaker 2: the charges is described as proof beyond reasonable doubt. This
Speaker 2: is a phrase that's been used in our law for
Speaker 2: a long time. It is a concept that juries applied
Speaker 2: day by day in our criminal courts. It means what
Speaker 2: it says that you, as twelve citizens who have a
Speaker 2: wide range of experience of life and a great fund
Speaker 2: of common sense, look at the evidence and decide whether
Speaker 2: or not the evidence that's there satisfies you beyond any
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt remains on some aspects
Speaker 2: of the evidence which has to be proved, then the
Speaker 2: Crown has failed in respect of that charge. The verdict
Speaker 2: that you reach must be the unanimous verdict of the
Speaker 2: twelve of you.
Speaker 6: Now, the other question that we're constantly being asked by
Speaker 6: listeners to this podcast is was it an all white jury?
Speaker 2: And by all accounts, the answer is yes. And as
Speaker 2: you heard in the judge's instructions, he said that the
Speaker 2: twelve citizens on the jury had a wide range of
Speaker 2: experience of life. But this was not a jury of
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry's peers. These were not people who in any
Speaker 2: way could relate to Kevin Henry. Had there been at
Speaker 2: least one Indigenous person on the panel of jurors, perhaps
Speaker 2: they would have been able to explain the issues such
Speaker 2: as gratuitous concurrence. They might not have understood the technicalities,
Speaker 2: but they could at least explain the issues that Aboriginal
Speaker 2: people have always had dealing with the police, and the
Speaker 2: issues Indigenous people face when they're questioned by police, not
Speaker 2: provided legal services, not provided interpreters, and the general distrust
Speaker 2: of law enforcement.
Speaker 4: Now, in the previous case we told you about Brandon
Speaker 4: Butler's trial over in the United States. His jury was
Speaker 4: a perfect representation of the community that he was from.
Speaker 4: The demographics were generally a good breakdown, so his jury
Speaker 4: included a number of African American jurors. Now, Brandon Butler
Speaker 4: was acquitted of murder, and it's shown in that Oscar
Speaker 4: Award winning documentary. Consider that when you think of the
Speaker 4: jury and when you hear what Martin is going to
Speaker 4: read in next from the judge.
Speaker 2: So, after the judge had explained what reasonable doubt is
Speaker 2: to the jury, he then outlined what each of the
Speaker 2: charges were that the jury had to consider. Now, we
Speaker 2: won't go over the charges that were laid against the women,
Speaker 2: but remember Kevin Henry was part of a trial that
Speaker 2: included two of the women who were found guilty of
Speaker 2: assaulting Linder. So those parts of the judge's instructions we
Speaker 2: won't include because they don't relate to Kevin Henry. But
Speaker 2: here's what does and I'm quoting the judge. Now, the
Speaker 2: fifth count is the one of the murder that on
Speaker 2: the thirty first day of August nineteen ninety one at
Speaker 2: Rockhampton in the state of Queensland. Kevin Allen Henry murdered Linda,
Speaker 2: remember when leaving out her last name in respect for
Speaker 2: her family. Now, the definition of murder involves considering a
Speaker 2: number of things. First of all, any person who causes
Speaker 2: the death of another directly or indirectly by any means
Speaker 2: whatever is deemed to have killed that person. That means,
Speaker 2: for present purposes, if Kevin Henry through the unconscious or
Speaker 2: badly abused body of Linda in the river and left
Speaker 2: her drift there, and she then drowned, he would have
Speaker 2: deemed to have killed her. In other words, a person
Speaker 2: may unlawfully kill someone else without themselves actually doing the
Speaker 2: direct things that causes the death. It is not necessary
Speaker 2: for you to imagine that he stood in the water
Speaker 2: and held her head under until she was drowned. If
Speaker 2: she is thrown in the river in the condition in
Speaker 2: which she could be unlikely to look after herself, well,
Speaker 2: that would directly or indirectly cause her death by drowning.
Speaker 2: All killing is unlawful unless it is authorized, justified, or excused,
Speaker 2: or there's no authorization, justification, or excuse. Any person who
Speaker 2: unlawfully kills another with the intention of killing them or
Speaker 2: with the intention of doing them grievous bodily harm, is
Speaker 2: said to have murdered that person. So the Crown must
Speaker 2: prove an intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.
Speaker 2: If there is no such intention proved, but you are
Speaker 2: otherwise satisfied that the accused has caused the death of Linda,
Speaker 2: and that it was not author authorized, justified, or excused,
Speaker 2: then you would return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. Now,
Speaker 2: having said that, it's important that you remember, as the listeners,
Speaker 2: that Kevin was not found guilty of manslaughter. He was
Speaker 2: found guilty of murder. So intent becomes very important. What
Speaker 2: the judge has just explained is that Kevin Henry had
Speaker 2: to have had the intention of killing Linda.
Speaker 4: Now, the judge's summation went for about fifty pages, but
Speaker 4: Martin is now going to outline a number of the
Speaker 4: key points the judge raised and told the jury.
Speaker 2: The judge was quite keen to stress on a number
Speaker 2: of occasions that the jury was not allowed to simply
Speaker 2: jump to conclusions. And I'll quote the judge. It's not
Speaker 2: a matter of simply saying, well, this is a dreadful situation.
Speaker 2: If there's anything pointing to guilt, well we'll have him.
Speaker 2: And on quite a number of occasions, the judge wanted
Speaker 2: to make this clear that speculation was not acceptable, that
Speaker 2: jumping to conclusions was not acceptable, that despite the horror
Speaker 2: of what was done to Linda, the jury, in particular
Speaker 2: relating to Kevin Henry, remembering unlike the women, there was
Speaker 2: no forensic evidence linking Kevin whatsoever, that they couldn't simply
Speaker 2: assume that there was and that it was missed. They
Speaker 2: couldn't simply make up their own mind that someone had
Speaker 2: to go to jail for this, and because Kevin Henry
Speaker 2: was in front of them, that it would be him.
Speaker 2: The judge was also very keen to point out something
Speaker 2: we've stressed to you, and this is what the judge says.
Speaker 2: It is a rather bizarre circumstance here that for some
Speaker 2: reason the police charged the three women with murder at
Speaker 2: one stage, although there doesn't seem at that stage to
Speaker 2: have been any evidence that they were involved in Linda's death,
Speaker 2: And this action tends to suggest a willingness to jump
Speaker 2: to conclusions rather than to get evidence assembled which proves something.
Speaker 2: If that has happened, and happened with trained police officers.
Speaker 2: It is very very important that twelve citizens who are
Speaker 2: assembled as a jury don't do the same thing. You
Speaker 2: may only return a verdict of guilty against Kevin Henry
Speaker 2: on the charge of murder if you are satisfied on
Speaker 2: the evidence that he did it. You must not jump
Speaker 2: to conclusions. You need to evaluate these so called confessions,
Speaker 2: looking at the witnesses who say they heard these things
Speaker 2: and deciding whether you can rely on them. And then
Speaker 2: if you are satisfied with the actual words, you have
Speaker 2: to be satisfied that they amount to a confession of
Speaker 2: murder and not to some other statement or garbled account
Speaker 2: that doesn't tally with the other evidence. So quite clearly,
Speaker 2: the judge was very keen to raise the issue of
Speaker 2: the three women being charged with murder and Kevin Henry
Speaker 2: being charged with murder on the same day prior to
Speaker 2: their being any evidence found by police that either implicated
Speaker 2: the women or Kevin Henry. He also wanted to make
Speaker 2: it quite clear that the statements made by witnesses had
Speaker 2: to be evaluated. You couldn't just simply rely on them
Speaker 2: because they were said. They had to match with the
Speaker 2: evidence and the jury had to satisfy themselves that not
Speaker 2: only were these statements made, not only were they truthful,
Speaker 2: not only did they match the evidence that they had
Speaker 2: to be linked absolutely to murder. Otherwise it simply does
Speaker 2: not add up to beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6: So given that manin, did the judge raise any doubt
Speaker 6: about those statements.
Speaker 2: The judge certainly did, and he spent a good deal
Speaker 2: of time, particularly analyzing the statements of Susan Aubrey, remembering
Speaker 2: that she was Kevin Henry's co accused and was convicted
Speaker 2: of the grievous bodily harm, and the judge was a
Speaker 2: concerned that she was also on trial alongside Kevin Henry,
Speaker 2: but also that her statements had changed, and that she'd
Speaker 2: implicated Kevin Henry once she herself had been charged. And
Speaker 2: in fact, he made quite a distinctive ruling, and this
Speaker 2: is what he says. She gives you a very good
Speaker 2: illustration of why this is so, because she has been
Speaker 2: interviewed twice and has changed her story the second time,
Speaker 2: blaming Henry a great deal than in her first account.
Speaker 2: In neither instance has she given her evidence on oath,
Speaker 2: and in neither instance is she cross examined in your presence.
Speaker 2: So from Henry's point of view, you must disregard it.
Speaker 2: It's not admissible in law against him. Now, given the
Speaker 2: judge made this very clear to the jury, it seems
Speaker 2: to me quite clear that he was worried the statement
Speaker 2: Susan Aubrey had made were not accurate and were potentially false.
Speaker 2: And we've explained previously why that would be so, because
Speaker 2: Susan Aubrey changed her statements on a number of occasions,
Speaker 2: first never mentioning Kevin Henry, and then later after she
Speaker 2: herself had been charged with murder, suddenly she was raising
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry's name left, right and center. The jury may
Speaker 2: have taken that into consideration. They may have actually believed
Speaker 2: Susan Aubrey despite there being no evidence what she says
Speaker 2: is factual in any way, and the judge was very
Speaker 2: clear to tell them that what she said could not
Speaker 2: be used against Kevin Henry, must be disregarded and it
Speaker 2: was not admissible in law against him. But this was
Speaker 2: one of the problems with there being a co trial
Speaker 2: a joint trial, that despite this evidence being not admissible,
Speaker 2: it had been heard by the jurors because because Susan
Speaker 2: Aubrey was on trial alongside Kevin Henry. So one thing
Speaker 2: to consider, did the jury get confused by these instructions
Speaker 2: and was Kevin Henry found guilty partly as confusion arisen
Speaker 2: out of the fact there was a joint trial and
Speaker 2: they heard evidence they would not have heard had Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry been on trial just on his own.
Speaker 6: Now, Mardon, A big part of this podcast has rested
Speaker 6: on Kevin's confession, and what we say is that it's
Speaker 6: very likely that it was forced and that became a
Speaker 6: false confession. Anywhere in the summation, does the judge allude
Speaker 6: to this, Yeah.
Speaker 2: He certainly does. And again, like on many of the
Speaker 2: issues we've raised, the judge raised them also, and he
Speaker 2: refers to a forced confession as if the person giving
Speaker 2: those answers that are false are telling a lie. And
Speaker 2: so that if Kevin Henry at any point said he
Speaker 2: did it, he could in fact be lying. And there's
Speaker 2: reasons people lie, and as we've spoken about, that could
Speaker 2: be because of intimidation, it could be out of those
Speaker 2: answers being coerced or forced. It could be because that
Speaker 2: person doesn't want to get in trouble, doesn't want to
Speaker 2: implicate others. Maybe they lie because they were simply intoxicated
Speaker 2: and don't remember anything at all. And this is what
Speaker 2: the judge said. As I said, people may lie for
Speaker 2: a variety of reasons. They may not want others to
Speaker 2: find out. There are various reasons for lying which don't
Speaker 2: amount to a consciousness of guilt. But more importantly, at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, there must be other evidence
Speaker 2: that proves guilt. Not just other evidence that proves what
Speaker 2: is said is a lie, but there must be other
Speaker 2: evidence that proves guilt. This is very important in the
Speaker 2: case of Henry. Keep that in mind when we come
Speaker 2: to it. So here the judge was particularly alluding to
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry and making sure that the jury kept that
Speaker 2: in mind when they came to the final wrap up
Speaker 2: of what they were going to have to decide. And
Speaker 2: what he was also saying was that if this confession
Speaker 2: was a lie, so that it was coerced and what
Speaker 2: was in it is not accurate, you can't simply convict
Speaker 2: Kevin based on that. There must be other evidence that
Speaker 2: proved guilt. And as the judge said previously, that can't
Speaker 2: just be other people's statements. That could also be lies,
Speaker 2: that would just be speculation. And this is where the
Speaker 2: issue of a lack of forensic evidence, a lack of
Speaker 2: eyewitness testimony, and all the issues we've raised about tidal
Speaker 2: record cords, the way the forensics were handled, the fact
Speaker 2: that none of it linked Kevin Henry comes into play.
Speaker 2: The judge was very clear to point out to the
Speaker 2: jury that a confession coerced or not was not something
Speaker 2: the jury could purely rely on.
Speaker 4: Now that seems to be quite hard to understand. Is
Speaker 4: it possible that the jury understood what the judge might
Speaker 4: have been trying to say.
Speaker 2: I think it's possible they either misunderstood, disregarded what the
Speaker 2: judge was saying, or was simply confused. Remembering the instructions
Speaker 2: were very long, So about twenty pages after the judge
Speaker 2: had said what I just read out, he continued to
Speaker 2: try and reinforce this. He was very clear on trying
Speaker 2: to make sure the jury didn't jump to conclusions and
Speaker 2: understood that lies and confessions that particularly don't add up
Speaker 2: with the known facts needed to be treated as such,
Speaker 2: and that they needed other evidence. And this is what
Speaker 2: he said some twenty pages later as a way of
Speaker 2: reminding the jury that you must not jump to conclusions.
Speaker 2: You need to evaluate these so called confessions, looking at
Speaker 2: the witnesses who say they heard these things, and deciding
Speaker 2: whether you can rely on them. And then if you
Speaker 2: are satisfied with the actual words, you have to be
Speaker 2: satisfied that they amount to a confession of murder and
Speaker 2: not to some other statement or garbled account that doesn't
Speaker 2: tally with the other evidence. This is vital because when
Speaker 2: the judge says looking at the witnesses, he's not just
Speaker 2: talking about the people at Tanuba, he's talking about the
Speaker 2: police as well. And listen to his words again, you
Speaker 2: need to these so called confessions. He doesn't say confessions,
Speaker 2: he doesn't say statements. He makes it very clear that
Speaker 2: the jury needs to consider them as potentially so called confessions,
Speaker 2: as in they could have been coerced, they could have
Speaker 2: been made up, and they may not be based in
Speaker 2: any fact whatsoever.
Speaker 4: Did the judge actually emphasize the difficulty of Kevin's defense
Speaker 4: given that it was a trial the two other women
Speaker 4: on trial with Kevin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he did raise it a number of times. And
Speaker 2: of course, because the issue is that the jury will
Speaker 2: have heard a lot of evidence that just didn't even
Speaker 2: relate to Kevin. All the things to do with the
Speaker 2: women committing the assault against Linda for which there was
Speaker 2: forensic evidence was heard by the same jury who were
Speaker 2: sitting in judgment of Kevin Henry and looking at Kevin
Speaker 2: as this evidence was being resented. And so the judge
Speaker 2: raised the issue about the difficulty for the defense in
Speaker 2: such a scenario, and perhaps what would have happened if
Speaker 2: Kevin had a trial of his own, And this is
Speaker 2: what the judge said. If Kevin Henry stood trial on
Speaker 2: his own, it wouldn't, of course, have been possible to
Speaker 2: have this other material from Susan Aubury come out as
Speaker 2: part of the crown case. The conduct of a defense
Speaker 2: is a thing that requires painful judgment. Often, as I
Speaker 2: understand the way mister Murray has conducted the defense, he
Speaker 2: has let this material go before you to show how
Speaker 2: once the Tenuba community was confronted with a corpse, as
Speaker 2: it were, it looked for someone to carry the blame,
Speaker 2: and Kevin Henry was the person who ended up with
Speaker 2: that burden. You have the allegations that Susan Aubrey made
Speaker 2: which demonstrate the possible truth of this line of argument.
Speaker 2: So what the judge is saying there is that the
Speaker 2: multiple statements of Susan Aubrey would not have been heard
Speaker 2: by the jury if Kevin was on trial on his own,
Speaker 2: and that the truth around Susan Aubrey's conduct in all
Speaker 2: circumstances would perhaps reinforce this line of argument that the
Speaker 2: Tanuba community, or at least some people who were there,
Speaker 2: decided to put the blame on Kevin Henry because that's
Speaker 2: what Susan Aubrey did, and there were clearly questions about
Speaker 2: the validity and the truth of her statements.
Speaker 3: So mardon the.
Speaker 6: Other part of the trial, as I can imagine, the
Speaker 6: jury was confronted with a lot of complicated forensic evidence
Speaker 6: that wouldn't see it complicated.
Speaker 4: Them at the time. Was it something that the judge
Speaker 4: actually talks about of this sumnation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the judge spends a considerable period of time on
Speaker 2: the forensic evidence, and as the judge says, almost all
Speaker 2: that forensic evidence relates to the women and not Kevin Henry.
Speaker 2: The judge also explains quite a number of times that
Speaker 2: the issues of the tide play a large part, and
Speaker 2: what he's trying to say to the jury is that
Speaker 2: there are many issues here, not just one where there
Speaker 2: could be doubt, and that the jury has to be
Speaker 2: satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a lot of
Speaker 2: this forensic evidence that was presented and a lot of
Speaker 2: the other evidence that was presented could possibly raise that doubt.
Speaker 2: And so here's what he said towards the end of
Speaker 2: his summation. Your task is to be satisfied beyond reasonable
Speaker 2: doubt on the evidence, not to say to yourself, this
Speaker 2: is the most terrible crime. We must bring someone to
Speaker 2: book for it. You must return a verdict on the
Speaker 2: evidence that satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt. Now this is
Speaker 2: your responsibility, ladies and gentlemen, and I simply emphasize this
Speaker 2: to you. I wouldn't suggest for one minute that you
Speaker 2: would do other than return a verdict according to the evidence.
Speaker 2: But there is this hazard in this case that we
Speaker 2: may jump to conclusions, and you must not do that.
Speaker 2: You must follow the path of the evidence. You must
Speaker 2: find that there is evidence that satisfies you beyond a
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt that Kevin Henry was the person who put
Speaker 2: the body in the river. If after you've considered all
Speaker 2: this carefully, you are left with a doubt about that.
Speaker 2: If the duck Heart suggestion raises any doubt, if the
Speaker 2: people down the river raise any doubt, or if the
Speaker 2: other circumstances that you see there leave you with a doubt,
Speaker 2: then of course you must acquit Kevin Henry of the
Speaker 2: charge of me.
Speaker 4: So at this point the jury retired at three point
Speaker 4: thirty two pm. Mardin what happened after they retired.
Speaker 2: Well, immediately after they were retired to consider their verdict,
Speaker 2: and following those instructions and the summation of the judge,
Speaker 2: the prosecutor stood up and this is what he said, Yes,
Speaker 2: your honor, I have two brief matters. The first one
Speaker 2: isn't really in favor of the prosecution at all. Now, straightway,
Speaker 2: clearly something's wrong. Why after a jury is asked to
Speaker 2: retire and consider their verdict is the prosecutor interrupting once
Speaker 2: the jury's retired and asked to speak to the judge.
Speaker 2: And what the prosecutor wanted to raise was he felt
Speaker 2: that the judge had not in fact gone far enough
Speaker 2: in discussing the year surrounding Kevin Henry's alleged force confession,
Speaker 2: which the prosecution of course is taking as a confession,
Speaker 2: and this is what the prosecutor says, that if the
Speaker 2: jury don't hear the words that the Crown says are
Speaker 2: on it, that is the confession, they simply must disregard
Speaker 2: it as part of the evidence against Kevin Henry. So
Speaker 2: it was in fact the prosecutor that led to the
Speaker 2: jury being recalled for the first time, and the jury
Speaker 2: had this explained to them. Then the jury returned a
Speaker 2: second time, and this time the jury was confused about
Speaker 2: what grievous bodily harm was. Remember this relates exclusively to
Speaker 2: the women and not Kevin Henry. But grievous bodily harm
Speaker 2: was explained in great detail to the jury, but just
Speaker 2: minutes after they'd retired, they'd had to come back yet
Speaker 2: again and have it explained to them all over again,
Speaker 2: and it was quite lengthy what the judge went through.
Speaker 2: He went back over a great deal of the evidence
Speaker 2: against the women. Then at five point twenty six pm
Speaker 2: the jury came back again. Now they didn't understand the
Speaker 2: issue of intoxication. Remember that many of the witnesses were
Speaker 2: heavily intoxicated when the crime took place. Remember the witnesses
Speaker 2: were all intoxicated when they gave their statements. In fact,
Speaker 2: its thoughts. Some of the witnesses may have even been
Speaker 2: intoxicated when they were on the stand, as many admitted themselves.
Speaker 2: They simply drank every day, and quite heavily, And the
Speaker 2: judge wanted to remind the jury something about this. After
Speaker 2: he'd explained the issue of intoxication and in the way
Speaker 2: it impairs people's ability to have a clear mind, he
Speaker 2: reminded the jury that if Kevin Henry was heavily intoxicated
Speaker 2: to the point where he'd fallen asleep during that day,
Speaker 2: as we know he did, then his ability to form
Speaker 2: intent to commit murder would not exist. He was very
Speaker 2: detailed in these instructions, and the jury retired once again.
Speaker 2: Now only moments later the jury returned again. They were
Speaker 2: confused about more evidence, They were confused about some of
Speaker 2: the witnesses, They were confused about the difference between manslaughter
Speaker 2: and murder, and they were confused as to what intoxication
Speaker 2: would be and how someone would be intoxicated. Now, it's
Speaker 2: important that at this stage the judge wanted to make
Speaker 2: it crystal clear, and because the jury seemed confused about
Speaker 2: certain witnesses, in particular, the judge reminded them what that
Speaker 2: witness had drunk that day, and he says, three cartons,
Speaker 2: three flagons, one vodka, and one rum and cola, just
Speaker 2: a big rum, you know, straight and just pure rum
Speaker 2: and coke in a coke bottle. Because that's what the
Speaker 2: witness says, and that's what the police are alleged as well. Now,
Speaker 2: clearly that amount of alcohol would leave someone heavily intoxicated,
Speaker 2: and so what the judge again was trying to say,
Speaker 2: is that would deeply impair that witness's ability to remember anything,
Speaker 2: to have given a truthful statement, and whether the jury
Speaker 2: should even consider what they said to be plausible or factual. Again,
Speaker 2: the jury retired.
Speaker 4: So after all of that, mardin how long did it
Speaker 4: take for the jury to come to a determination.
Speaker 2: So in total it was around five hours and twenty minutes,
Speaker 2: which includes the jury having to come backward and forward.
Speaker 2: And the judge explained many of these issues, and despite
Speaker 2: all of that confusion, where quite clearly the jury did
Speaker 2: not understand points of law evidence, what constituted murder or manslaughter,
Speaker 2: what constituted grievous bodily harm, whether they should believe a
Speaker 2: witness or not based on an enormous amount of alcohol
Speaker 2: having been consumed. At eight point fifty six pm, the
Speaker 2: jury returned and their verdicts were unanimous. In the case
Speaker 2: of Susan Aubrey, they found her guilty, in the case
Speaker 2: of Amy Saunders, they found her guilty. And in the
Speaker 2: case of Kevin Henry, despite all this confusion, they found
Speaker 2: him guilty and twenty five years later, he's still in prison.
Speaker 4: Now a question for you, the listener, based on everything
Speaker 4: you've heard today and everything you've heard in the podcast,
Speaker 4: would you have found Kevin Henry guilty beyond.
Speaker 1: A reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2: That was Episode twenty three. Join us next week again
Speaker 2: for Curtin